优雅的科学叙事与意想不到的影响:科学传播科学议程

IF 7.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Issues and Policy Review Pub Date : 2018-11-20 DOI:10.1111/SIPR.12055
H. Blanton, Elif G. Ikizer
{"title":"优雅的科学叙事与意想不到的影响:科学传播科学议程","authors":"H. Blanton, Elif G. Ikizer","doi":"10.1111/SIPR.12055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientists must share their work with the public in order to promote science-based public discourse and policies. These acts of science communication are often evaluated in terms of their ability to inform (i.e., introduce accurate and accessible information) and engage (i.e., capture interest and maintain attention). We focus on a third basis by which science communication might be judged, influence. Science communicators exert influence when they shape public opinions in ways that affect their judgments and decisions, alter social and political discourse and debate, and guide social policy. We describe how the influence of any given science communication should be evaluated independent of its ability to inform or engage. We give particular attention in our analysis to the often unintended influences that well-meaning science communicators can have. We begin by considering ways that communications from climate scientists might reduce support for climate regulation and communications from health scientists might undermine public health. We then develop two “case studies,” drawn from social psychology. These show how popular media descriptions of the science of racial bias and disadvantage might in some cases exacerbate racial discrimination and reduce concern for the disadvantaged. We close with an agenda for a more vigorous science of science communication; one that engages in two complementary pursuits. Critical studies identify the dominant and consequential effects that popular science communicators are having on public perceptions. Strategic studies advance and empirically","PeriodicalId":47129,"journal":{"name":"Social Issues and Policy Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12055","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elegant Science Narratives and Unintended Influences: An Agenda for the Science of Science Communication\",\"authors\":\"H. Blanton, Elif G. Ikizer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/SIPR.12055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientists must share their work with the public in order to promote science-based public discourse and policies. These acts of science communication are often evaluated in terms of their ability to inform (i.e., introduce accurate and accessible information) and engage (i.e., capture interest and maintain attention). We focus on a third basis by which science communication might be judged, influence. Science communicators exert influence when they shape public opinions in ways that affect their judgments and decisions, alter social and political discourse and debate, and guide social policy. We describe how the influence of any given science communication should be evaluated independent of its ability to inform or engage. We give particular attention in our analysis to the often unintended influences that well-meaning science communicators can have. We begin by considering ways that communications from climate scientists might reduce support for climate regulation and communications from health scientists might undermine public health. We then develop two “case studies,” drawn from social psychology. These show how popular media descriptions of the science of racial bias and disadvantage might in some cases exacerbate racial discrimination and reduce concern for the disadvantaged. We close with an agenda for a more vigorous science of science communication; one that engages in two complementary pursuits. Critical studies identify the dominant and consequential effects that popular science communicators are having on public perceptions. Strategic studies advance and empirically\",\"PeriodicalId\":47129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12055\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12055\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Issues and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12055","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

科学家必须与公众分享他们的工作,以促进基于科学的公共话语和政策。这些科学传播行为通常根据其告知(即介绍准确和可获取的信息)和参与(即吸引兴趣和保持注意力)的能力进行评估。我们关注第三个评判科学传播的基础,影响力。当科学传播者以影响其判断和决策、改变社会和政治话语和辩论以及指导社会政策的方式塑造公众舆论时,他们就会发挥影响力。我们描述了如何独立于其告知或参与的能力来评估任何特定科学传播的影响。我们在分析中特别注意善意的科学传播者可能产生的往往意想不到的影响。我们首先考虑气候科学家的沟通可能会减少对气候监管的支持,而卫生科学家的沟通则可能会破坏公众健康。然后,我们发展了两个“案例研究”,从社会心理学中提取。这些表明,在某些情况下,流行媒体对种族偏见和劣势科学的描述可能会加剧种族歧视,减少对弱势群体的关注。最后,我们提出了一个更有力的科学传播科学议程;从事两种互补追求的人。批判性研究确定了科普传播者对公众认知的主导和间接影响。战略研究的进展和经验
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
Elegant Science Narratives and Unintended Influences: An Agenda for the Science of Science Communication
Scientists must share their work with the public in order to promote science-based public discourse and policies. These acts of science communication are often evaluated in terms of their ability to inform (i.e., introduce accurate and accessible information) and engage (i.e., capture interest and maintain attention). We focus on a third basis by which science communication might be judged, influence. Science communicators exert influence when they shape public opinions in ways that affect their judgments and decisions, alter social and political discourse and debate, and guide social policy. We describe how the influence of any given science communication should be evaluated independent of its ability to inform or engage. We give particular attention in our analysis to the often unintended influences that well-meaning science communicators can have. We begin by considering ways that communications from climate scientists might reduce support for climate regulation and communications from health scientists might undermine public health. We then develop two “case studies,” drawn from social psychology. These show how popular media descriptions of the science of racial bias and disadvantage might in some cases exacerbate racial discrimination and reduce concern for the disadvantaged. We close with an agenda for a more vigorous science of science communication; one that engages in two complementary pursuits. Critical studies identify the dominant and consequential effects that popular science communicators are having on public perceptions. Strategic studies advance and empirically
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
CiteScore
22.20
自引率
1.10%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The mission of Social Issues and Policy Review (SIPR) is to provide state of the art and timely theoretical and empirical reviews of topics and programs of research that are directly relevant to understanding and addressing social issues and public policy.Papers will be accessible and relevant to a broad audience and will normally be based on a program of research. Works in SIPR will represent perspectives directly relevant to the psychological study of social issues and public policy. Contributions are expected to be review papers that present a strong scholarly foundation and consider how research and theory can inform social issues and policy or articulate the implication of social issues and public policy for theory and research.
期刊最新文献
A human rights‐based approach to climates injustices at the local, national, and international levels: Program and policy recommendations The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective Omission as a modern form of bias against Native Peoples: Implications for policies and practices Psychological science and its societal mission during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic: The Motivation Barometer as an evidence‐informed policy instrument in Belgium The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction
×
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