Public Understanding of Science最新文献

The concept of 'audience' is central to research and practice in science communication. When asked by a scientist for help communicating their work, who among us has not responded with the time honoured question 'who is your audience?' Yet what we mean when we talk about audience is not always clear: implied and ambiguous, rather than explicit and precise. This article explores this ambiguity, drawing on a systematic review of 1360 science communication research articles and a survey of 45 science communication educators. We report 10 different conceptualisations, in three groups. Being conceptualisations include 'Demographic', 'Knowledge', 'Values' and 'Embodied'; Doing conceptualisations include 'Interaction' and 'Dynamic'. In Qualifiers, we found 'Diverse', 'Potential', 'Plural' and 'General' conceptualisations. These data allow tracking of how we have conceptualised audience over time, an understanding of the groups systematically under-serviced, and a pathway to a richer discussion of this key concept for our field.

Skepticism about health/vaccination policies during Covid-19 was considered a key example of "science-related populism" mainly based on far-right case studies. However, criticism also spread among various left-wing and environmentalist milieus, which represents an understudied phenomenon. Relying on different strands of scientific literature, and on a qualitative research design aimed both to take account of the political heterogeneity within this critical area and to deepen its links with environmentalism, we aim to highlight the limits and normative implications of its interpretation as solely populism, and to contribute to the elaboration of a different interpretive model. Qualitative and frame-bridging analysis highlighted the consolidation of worldviews in clear opposition to hegemonic values, where the criticism of science finds a more appropriate explanation in a denunciation of the intrusiveness of capitalism in science production, as well as in a rejection of "reductionism" and a claim to self-determination that extend from ecological to health issues.

The discourse on scientists' involvement in climate advocacy has intensified, with a growing number participating in civil disobedience. This trend has sparked criticism within the academic community. We conducted 47 interviews with climate scientists about the fundamental concerns that underpin their arguments. Scientists worry that advocacy may compromise scientific impartiality and invite allegations of biased science and abuse of authority. Despite this, some scientists view informing and warning the public as their duty and as an act of defending science's credibility. Concerns about independence and the role of scientists in society exist at both ends of the debate, underscoring the challenging landscape scientists currently navigate. While this article does not comment on the acceptability of advocacy, we propose that scientists engage in discussions about their duties and delineate the types of values deemed acceptable for incorporation in science communication about climate change.

The first edition of the New York Times published after the Apollo 11 astronauts walked on the moon (21 July 1969) is an extraordinary artefact of creative experimentation in reporting on a major scientific event. The Times published poems and artworks critical of the moon landing, and showcased first-person perspectives from public figures who expressed misgivings about space exploration, yet the 50th anniversary commemorations of Apollo 11 (in 2019) overlooked this unusual example of science reporting. This article is a case study and close reading of that Times issue, aiming to bring those alternate responses - long buried in the archives - back into view as instances of resistance to spacefaring. It also serves as an inspirational reminder that the New York Times opened up the form and style of its science reporting in 1969 to include diverse voices and opinions, thus deepening and enriching public understanding of a significant scientific event.

Concerns about social justice are long standing across many fields. In this article, we outline key social justice concepts in relation to science communication, before examining the politics of science and science communication in more detail. We argue more focus is needed on how certain forms of politics and power travel through science and science communication in ways that have created, reinforced and/or ameliorated structural inequities. We argue that foregrounding social justice perspectives helps make explicit the power dynamics involved in creating and communicating knowledge. For us, this is a purposeful move that resists the urge to tidy away, 'naturalise' or otherwise hide politics and power. We invite readers to collectively interrogate our existing science communication theories and practices with a view to transforming them to be more just and meaningfully improve people's lives and ecosystems.

This study explores how scientists are represented in the films produced in China since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. In total, 61 films (25 realistic and 36 science fiction) are analyzed according to grounded theory. Results show that the scientist in Chinese films tends to be male, middle-aged, married, sociable, and with tidy hair. He is most likely from the field of physics and tends to conduct experiments in a laboratory. Six prototypes are identified: the patriotic scientist, the stubborn scientist, the elite scientist, the scientist as adventurer, the helpless scientist, and the mad scientist. The patriotic scientist is specific to the Chinese context and predominates in realistic films. In comparison, the science fiction films show more diversity in representing scientists. Finally, we discuss similarities and differences in the cinematic representation of scientists in China and in the West.

This study delves into the intricate relationships between attention to AI in news media, perceived AI explainability, trust in AI, and public support for autonomous passenger drones. Using structural equation modelling (N = 1,002), we found significant associations between perceived AI explainability and all trust dimensions (i.e., performance, purpose, process). Additionally, we revealed that the public acquired the perception of AI explainability through attention to AI in the news media. Consequently, we found that when the public pondered upon support for autonomous passenger drones, only the trust in performance dimension was relevant. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring explainability for the public and highlight the pivotal role of news media in shaping public perceptions in emerging AI technologies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Online videos are a popular medium for science communication. These videos can be presented from many perspectives, including scientists sharing their own work or a third-party presenting research findings. A mixed between- and within-subjects experiment (n = 620) was conducted in the United States to assess the impact of narrative perspective on the communication objectives of increasing knowledge, changing perceptions, and influencing behavior related to bee diversity. Results indicate that watching a video presented by a scientist was associated with higher levels of perceived competence and a higher likelihood to mention a person or persons when recalling the video. However, we did not find significant effects of narrative perspective on knowledge gain and behavioral intentions to help support bee diversity.

Science communication has diversified in the wake of the digital transformation of communication and media ecosystems. Social media enable universities, but also academics and institutions affiliated with them, to expand their communication. This leads to increasing plurivocality of universities, yet the many different voices remain largely unexplored. This study develops a typology to conceptually distinguish eight voices by their representational role, hierarchical embeddedness, type, and affiliation. Based on a quantitative content and social network analysis of more than 600 Twitter accounts linked to a research university, it identifies six types of voices empirically. The study compares interactions among these voices, showing differences between central and decentral, as well as institutional and individual voices, and highlighting closer exchanges between voices within the same disciplinary communities. It also examines topics and tonality, revealing that decentral institutional voices engage most in science-related topics, and that only current and former students express critical views.