制定科学

Petra Pansegrau, G. Popova
{"title":"制定科学","authors":"Petra Pansegrau, G. Popova","doi":"10.4324/9781315163284-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports on our efforts to understand the media representation of science in Britain and Germany using the corpora of science news newly compiled for the project Mapping the Cultural Authority of Science (MACAS). Our aim was to explore the representation of science and scientists without limiting ourselves to any particular domain of investigation, i.e. without looking at science reporting in relation to health, for example, or space exploration, or engineering, etc. This, of course, simultaneously posed a challenge: we couldn’t pay attention to tensions, controversies, competing discourses and frames that were specific to such domains and issues. Instead, we tried to probe very generally into what science reporting seems to have in common across all these more specific areas. We wanted to know what beliefs about science appear to dominate public discourse and how scientists are represented as social actors regardless of specific discipline affiliations. As we were looking to compare the two contexts on the basis of a qualitative analysis, our paper didn’t delve into distinctions within either of the two corpora. In aiming for this general level, we have, without doubt, denied ourselves interesting observations. We hope that what we say here, even when it simply confirms our intuitions, will illuminate the defaults against which, perhaps, other conceptions of science could be juxtaposed.","PeriodicalId":276354,"journal":{"name":"The Cultural Authority of Science","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Framing science\",\"authors\":\"Petra Pansegrau, G. Popova\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315163284-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper reports on our efforts to understand the media representation of science in Britain and Germany using the corpora of science news newly compiled for the project Mapping the Cultural Authority of Science (MACAS). Our aim was to explore the representation of science and scientists without limiting ourselves to any particular domain of investigation, i.e. without looking at science reporting in relation to health, for example, or space exploration, or engineering, etc. This, of course, simultaneously posed a challenge: we couldn’t pay attention to tensions, controversies, competing discourses and frames that were specific to such domains and issues. Instead, we tried to probe very generally into what science reporting seems to have in common across all these more specific areas. We wanted to know what beliefs about science appear to dominate public discourse and how scientists are represented as social actors regardless of specific discipline affiliations. As we were looking to compare the two contexts on the basis of a qualitative analysis, our paper didn’t delve into distinctions within either of the two corpora. In aiming for this general level, we have, without doubt, denied ourselves interesting observations. We hope that what we say here, even when it simply confirms our intuitions, will illuminate the defaults against which, perhaps, other conceptions of science could be juxtaposed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":276354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cultural Authority of Science\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cultural Authority of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163284-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cultural Authority of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163284-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文报道了我们利用科学文化权威(MACAS)项目新编制的科学新闻语料库来理解英国和德国科学媒体表征的努力。我们的目的是探索科学和科学家的代表性,而不局限于任何特定的调查领域,即不查看与健康、空间探索或工程等有关的科学报告。当然,这同时提出了一个挑战:我们不能关注这些领域和问题特有的紧张关系、争议、竞争性话语和框架。相反,我们试图从总体上探究科学报道在所有这些更具体的领域中似乎有什么共同点。我们想知道关于科学的什么信念似乎主导了公共话语,以及科学家是如何被代表为社会行动者的,而不考虑具体的学科隶属关系。由于我们希望在定性分析的基础上比较两种上下文,我们的论文没有深入研究两种语料库中的区别。为了达到这个一般水平,毫无疑问,我们放弃了有趣的观察。我们希望,我们在这里所说的,即使只是证实了我们的直觉,也将阐明那些可能与其他科学概念并列的默认值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Framing science
This paper reports on our efforts to understand the media representation of science in Britain and Germany using the corpora of science news newly compiled for the project Mapping the Cultural Authority of Science (MACAS). Our aim was to explore the representation of science and scientists without limiting ourselves to any particular domain of investigation, i.e. without looking at science reporting in relation to health, for example, or space exploration, or engineering, etc. This, of course, simultaneously posed a challenge: we couldn’t pay attention to tensions, controversies, competing discourses and frames that were specific to such domains and issues. Instead, we tried to probe very generally into what science reporting seems to have in common across all these more specific areas. We wanted to know what beliefs about science appear to dominate public discourse and how scientists are represented as social actors regardless of specific discipline affiliations. As we were looking to compare the two contexts on the basis of a qualitative analysis, our paper didn’t delve into distinctions within either of the two corpora. In aiming for this general level, we have, without doubt, denied ourselves interesting observations. We hope that what we say here, even when it simply confirms our intuitions, will illuminate the defaults against which, perhaps, other conceptions of science could be juxtaposed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The authority of science in Korea The science, the paranormal, cohorts and cognitive polyphasia Bridging a gap – mapping the science coverage of South African newspapers Correlational stability in the US-NSF science & engineering surveys 1979–2014 Attitudes towards science in the World Values Surveys – longitudinal evidence 1981–2014
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1