Search results

Previous works on popularization of science in magazines were strongly influenced by traditional methods used with scientific discourse, and pictures were only analyzed in terms of efficiency. This paper will focus on the role of imagery portraying science and scientists in Science et Vie and La Recherche, two French magazines. La Recherche uses more complex photographs, requiring more scientific knowledge from the reader, while Science et Vie uses more high-tech pictures. Both styles of picture originate from genuine scientific endeavours and have didactic aims. Science is then integrated into a system of familiar representations shown through stereotyped pictures (test tubes, etc.) revealing the process of science: the labs and their techniques rather than the results. However, La Recherche focuses more on portraying scientists as a group, especially recipients of honorary distinctions. The frequent use of `chalk and blackboard' is one way of dogmatizing scientific knowledge while pictures of scientists in their private lives is a way of popularizing and humanizing science. The scientist remains an archetype of knowledge — yet still as mortal as the layman. But science stays isolated from its economic or political context. In contrast to popular magazines, primary scientific journals never portray scientists, science being enunciated without reference to the enunciator, striving for absolute intellectualization.

Intro -- Foreword by Pierre Mutzenhardt -- Foreword by Han Qide -- Introduction: New Questions, New Objects, New Approaches -- Opening Address -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- Acronyms and Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Part I Science Communication at the Crossroad -- 1 Communicating Science: Heterogeneous, Multiform and Polysemic -- 1.1 Foreword -- 1.2 The Structure of the Field -- 1.2.1 Yesterday: A Heterogeneous and Multiform Research Field -- 1.2.2 Today: Still a Heterogeneous and Multiform Research Field -- 1.3 The Different Terms for 'Science Communication' and Their Meanings -- 1.3.1 A Tangle of Terms -- 1.3.2 The Structuring Effect of the Context -- 1.3.3 Science Communication (SciC) -- 1.4 Least Mentioned Terms -- 1.4.1 Scientific Temper (ST) -- 1.4.2 Scientific Mediation (SM) -- 1.4.3 Science Vulgarization (VS) -- 1.4.4 Empowerment (EM) -- 1.4.5 Democratization of Science (DS) -- 1.4.6 Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) -- 1.5 Moderately Mentioned Terms -- 1.5.1 Scientific Information (SI) -- 1.5.2 Science Culture (SC) -- 1.5.3 Public Understanding of Science (PUS) -- 1.6 The Most Mentioned Terms -- 1.6.1 Science Popularization (SP) -- 1.6.2 Science Literacy (SL) -- 1.6.3 Public Communication of Science (PC) -- 1.6.4 Public Awareness (PA) -- 1.6.5 Public Participation (PT) -- 1.6.6 Public Engagement (PE) -- 1.7 Conclusion -- Appendix -- References -- 2 Citizen Science as Participatory Science Communication -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Contextualizing Participatory Science Communication -- 2.3 Method -- 2.4 Participatory Science Communication -- 2.4.1 Access -- 2.4.2 Interaction -- 2.4.3 Participation -- 2.5 Conclusion -- References -- 3 Science Communication on Offer by Research Institutes in Eight Countries -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Methods -- 3.2.1 Data -- 3.2.2 Measurements.

Science communication, as a multidisciplinary field, has developed remarkably in recent years. It is now a distinct and exceedingly dynamic science that melds theoretical approaches with practical experience. Formerly well-established theoretical models now seem out of step with the social reality of the sciences, and the previously clear-cut delineations and interacting domains between cultural fields have blurred. Communicating Science in Social Contexts examines that shift, which itself depicts a profound recomposition of knowledge fields, activities and dissemination practices, and the value accorded to science and technology. Communicating Science in Social Contexts is the product of long-term effort that would not have been possible without the research and expertise of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network and the editors. For nearly 20 years, this informal, international network has been organizing events and forums for discussion of the public communication of science.

Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.