Scientific debates in modern societies often blur the lines between the science that is being debated and the political, moral, and legal implications that come with its societal applications. This ...manuscript traces the origins of this phenomenon to professional norms within the scientific discipline and to the nature and complexities of modern science and offers an expanded model of science communication that takes into account the political contexts in which science communication takes place. In a second step, it explores what we know from empirical work in political communication, public opinion research, and communication research about the dynamics that determine how issues are debated and attitudes are formed in political environments. Finally, it discusses how and why it will be increasingly important for science communicators to draw from these different literatures to ensure that the voice of the scientific community is heard in the broader societal debates surrounding science.
Communicating science in social settings Scheufele, Dietram A.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
08/2013, Letnik:
110, Številka:
Supplement 3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
This essay examines the societal dynamics surrounding modern science. It first discusses a number of challenges facing any effort to communicate science in social environments: lay publics with ...varying levels of preparedness for fully understanding new scientific breakthroughs; the deterioration of traditional media infrastructures; and an increasingly complex set of emerging technologies that are surrounded by a host of ethical, legal, and social considerations. Based on this overview, I discuss four areas in which empirical social science helps clarify intuitive but sometimes faulty assumptions about the social-level mechanisms of science communication and outline an agenda for bench and social scientists—driven by current social-scientific research in the field of science communication—to guide more effective communication efforts at the societal level in the future.
This special issue of Journal of Communication is devoted to theoretical explanations of news framing, agenda setting, and priming effects. It examines if and how the three models are related and ...what potential relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. As an introduction to this effort, this essay provides a very brief review of the three effects and their roots in media‐effects research. Based on this overview, we highlight a few key dimensions along which one can compare, framing, agenda setting, and priming. We conclude with a description of the contexts within which the three models operate, and the broader implications that these conceptual distinctions have for the growth of our discipline.
Résumé
Cadrage, programmes d’action et préparation: l’évolution de ces trois modèles d’effets des médias
Ce numéro spécial de Journal of Communication est consacréà l’explication théorique du cadrage, de la définition des programmes d’action (agenda setting) et des effets de la préparation (priming) en ce qui a trait aux actualités. Il examine si ces trois modèles sont liés et de quelle manière ils le sont, en plus de chercher à comprendre ce que leurs relations éventuelles peuvent signaler aux théoriciens et chercheurs à propos des effets des médias de masse. Cet article offre en introduction un bref survol des trois modèles et de leur origine au cœur de la recherche sur les effets médiatiques. À partir de ce survol, nous dégagerons quelques dimensions clés comme référence pour la comparaison des modèles de préparation, de cadrage et de définition des programmes d’action. Nous conclurons par une description des contextes à l’intérieur desquels opèrent les relations entre le cadrage, la définition des programmes d’action et la préparation, ainsi que par une discussion sur les implications générales de ces distinctions conceptuelles pour le développement de notre discipline.
Framing, Agenda‐Setting und Priming: Die Entwicklung von drei Medienwirkungsmodellen
Diese Sonderausgabe des Journal of Communication widmet sich der theoretischen Erklärung von Nachrichten‐Framing, Agenda‐Setting und Priming‐Effekten. Dabei soll zum einen untersucht werden, ob und wie diese drei Modelle miteinander verwandt sind und zum anderen, welche möglichen Zusammenhänge einen Ausgangspunkt zur Erklärung von Medienwirkungen darstellen. Einführend dazu gibt dieser Artikel einen kurzen Überblick über die drei Modelle und ihre Wurzeln in der Medienwirkungsforschung. Auf Basis dieses Überblicks beleuchten wir einige wenige Kerndimensionen anhand derer man Priming, Framing und Agenda‐Setting vergleichen kann. Wir schließen mit einer Beschreibung des kontextuellen Rahmens in dem die Beziehungen zwischen Framing, Agenda‐Setting und Priming stattfinden sowie weiteren Implikationen, welche diese konzeptionellen Unterscheidungen für die Fortentwicklung unseres Faches haben.
Resumen
Los Efectos del Framing, de la Agenda‐Setting, y del Priming: La Evolución de Tres Modelos de Efectos de los Medios Masivos
Esta edición especial del Journal of Communication está dedicada a las explicaciones teóricas del framing, la agenda‐setting y los efectos del priming sobre las noticias. Examina si, y cómo, estos tres modelos están relacionados entre sí, y qué relaciones potenciales entre ellos informan a teóricos e investigadores sobre los efectos de los medios masivos. Como una introducción a este esfuerzo, este ensayo provee una reseña breve de estos tres efectos y sus raíces en la investigación de los efectos de los medios masivos. Basados en este panorama general, destacamos algunas dimensiones claves a través de las cuales se pueden comparar el priming, el framing, y la agenda‐setting. Concluimos con una descripción de los contextos dentro de los cuales las relaciones entre el framing, el priming y la agenda‐setting operan, y las implicaciones mayores que estas distinciones conceptuales tienen en el crecimiento de nuestra disciplina.
ZhaiYao
Yo yak
Concerns about public misinformation in the United States—ranging from politics to science—are growing. Here, we provide an overview of how and why citizens become (and sometimes remain) misinformed ...about science. Our discussion focuses specifically on misinformation among individual citizens. However, it is impossible to understand individual information processing and acceptance without taking into account social networks, information ecologies, and other macro-level variables that provide important social context. Specifically, we show how being misinformed is a function of a person’s ability and motivation to spot falsehoods, but also of other group-level and societal factors that increase the chances of citizens to be exposed to correct(ive) information. We conclude by discussing a number of research areas—some of which echo themes of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Communicating Science Effectively report—that will be particularly important for our future understanding of misinformation, specifically a systems approach to the problem of misinformation, the need for more systematic analyses of science communication in new media environments, and a (re)focusing on traditionally underserved audiences.
As the reach of science content in traditional media declines, many institutions and scientists are turning to YouTube as a powerful tool for communicating directly with non-expert publics. They do ...so with little empirical social science research guiding their efforts. This study explores how video characteristics and social endorsement cues provided by audience members might influence user engagement with online science videos. Shorter videos are more likely to be viewed. Social endorsement cues significantly relate to variations in user engagement, with likes having a consistent positive association with all types of engagement. Implications for science communication through YouTube are discussed.
Science, New Media, and the Public Brossard, Dominique; Scheufele, Dietram A.
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
01/2013, Letnik:
339, Številka:
6115
Journal Article
Recenzirano
A better understanding is needed about how the online environment affects the communication of science information to the public.
Nine in 10 internet users in the United States turn to search engines ...to find information (
1
), and 60% of the U.S. public seeking information about specific scientific issues lists the Internet as their primary source of information (
2
). This has created a new urgency for scientists to pay attention to these trends and to the emerging scholarly literature about communicating science in this brave new “online” world.
The COVID-19 pandemic went hand in hand with what some have called a “(mis)infodemic” about the virus on social media. Drawing on partisan motivated reasoning and partisan selective sharing, this ...study examines the influence of political viewpoints, anxiety, and the interactions of the two on believing and willingness to share false, corrective, and accurate claims about COVID-19 on social media. A large-scale 2 (emotion: anxiety vs relaxation) × 2 (slant of news outlet: MSNBC vs Fox News) experimental design with 719 US participants shows that anxiety is a driving factor in belief in and willingness to share claims of any type. Especially for Republicans, a state of heightened anxiety leads them to believe and share more claims. Our findings expand research on partisan motivated reasoning and selective sharing in online settings, and enhance the understanding of how anxiety shapes individuals’ processing of risk-related claims in issue contexts with high uncertainty.
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of ...the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Compelling stories about science can motivate people to engage and respond to relevant problems facing society. While science plays a unique role in society, providing the best available evidence for ...policy choices, understanding the world, and informing citizens' daily lives, it does not hold any intrinsic advantage in creating captivating stories for mass audiences. Instead, science must compete with other storytellers, many of whom are not bound to scientific evidence. This presents a paradox-how can science preserve its credibility as curator of knowledge while engaging audiences with a communication format that is agnostic to truth?
Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample ...representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support.
PDF
