Historias científicas como cultura: experiencia, identidad, narrativa y emoción en la comunicación pública de la ciencia
Resumen
Se publica el artículo de Sarah R. Davies, que forma parte del volumen 18 de la revista Journal of Science Communication, editada en 2019*. La visión que presenta la profesora Davies de la comunicación científica como cultura, es de gran interés para el monográfico que se presenta en este número de la revista Príncipe de Viana. El planteamiento de que la ciencia no es algo externo a la cultura, sino que ambas están entrelazadas, potencia la visión de cultura integral que se ofrece en esta publicación. Esta visión complementa las aportaciones de los profesores Bauer y Schäfer, ofreciendo a este volumen un marco conceptual acerca de la investigación en la comunicación y la divulgación de la ciencia. [PV].
Estadísticas
Referencias
Baram-Tsabari, A. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). Science communication training: what are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
Barbalet, J. (2002). Science and emotions. The Sociological Review 50(S2), 132-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2002.tb03595.x
Bauer, M. W. & Gregory, J. (2007). PUS Inc.: from journalism to corporate communication in post-War Britain. En M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (eds.), Journalism, Science and Society: between News and Public Relations (pp. 33-52). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203942314
Blue, G. (2018). Science communication is culture: foregrounding ritual in the public communication of science. Science Communication, 41(2), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018816456
Bray, B., France, B. & Gilbert, J. K. (2012). Identifying the Essential Elements of Effective Science Communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), pp. 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627
Broks, P. (2017). Science communication: process, power and politic. JCOM, 16(4), C02. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/16/04/JCOM_1604_2017_C01/JCOM_1604_2017_C02
Brossard, D. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. En L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (eds.), Communicating Science; New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O’Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L. & Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science. En M. Bucchi & B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 57-76). Routledge.
Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513498202
Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (eds.). (2014). Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2.ª ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794
Bultitude, K. & Sardo, A. M. (2012). Leisure and Pleasure: Science events in unusual locations. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2775-2795. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.664293
Burns, M. & Medvecky, F. (2016). The disengaged in science communication: how not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516678351
Carey, J. (1989). Communication as culture: essays on media and society. Unwin Hyman.
Cook, G. (2004). Genetically modified language. Routledge.
Crowley, K. (2018). Are the fields of informal science education and science communication adjacent or connected? A bibliometric study of research journals from 2012 to 2016. CAISE (Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education).
Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization. Dramas of institutional identity. The University of Chicago Press.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement 4), 13614-13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Daston, L. & Park, K. (2001). Wonders and the order of nature, 1150-1750. Zone Books.
Davies, S. R. (2014). Knowing and loving: public engagement beyond discourse. Science & Technology Studies, 27(3), 90-110.
Davies, S. R. (2019). Science communication as emotion work: negotiating curiosity and wonder at a science festival. Science as Culture, 28(4), 538-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1597035
Davies, S. R. & Horst, M. (2016). Science Communication: culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50366-4
Dawson, E. (2014). «Not designed for us»: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98, 981-1008.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Perigree Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Free Press.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: the story of the SonyWalkman. SAGE Publications.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A. & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0
Elam, M. & Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431003006002005
Fahy, D. (2015). The new celebrity scientists. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Fahy, D. & Caulfield, T. (2016). Science, celebrities and public engagement. Issues in Science & Technology, 32(4), 24-26.
Fahy, D. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2014). Scientists in popular culture. En M. Bucchi & B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (2.ª ed.) (pp. 83-96). Routledge.
Felt, U. & Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science. En S. Rödder, M. Franzen & P. Weingart (eds.), The Sciences’ Media Connection. Public Communication and its Repercussions (pp. 133-154). Springer.
Felt, U. & Wynne, B. (2007). Science and governance: taking european knowledge society seriously. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf
Fogg-Rogers, L., Bay, J. L., Burgess, H. & Purdy, S. C. (2015). «Knowledge is power»: a mixed-methods study exploring adult audience preferences for engagement and learning formats over 3 years of a health science festival. Science Communication, 37(4), 419-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015585006
Ganetz, H. (2016). The Nobel celebrity-scientist: genius and personality. Celebrity Studies, 7(2), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2015.1088394
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. En The interpretation of cultures: selected essays (pp. 3-30). Basic Books.
Gilbert, N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: a sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Green, M. C., Brock, T. C. & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: the role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00317.x
Gregory, J. & Lock, S. J. (2008). The Evolution of «Public Understanding of Science»: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252-1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00137.x
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage.
Halpern, M. K. (2012). Across the great divide: boundaries and boundary objects in art and science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 922-937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394040
Harrison, P. (2001). Curiosity, forbidden knowledge and the reformation of natural philosophy in early modern England. Isis, 92(2), 265-290. https://doi.org/10.1086/385182
Harvey, M. (2009). Drama, talk and emotion: omitted aspects of public participation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907309632
Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image’. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060636
Hemmings, C. (2005). INVOKING AFFECT: cultural theory and the ontological turn. Cultural Studies, 19(5), 548-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380500365473
Horst, M. (2013). A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758-779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513
Horst, M. & Michael, M. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: re-thinking science communication as «event». Science as Culture, 20(3), 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2010.524199
Illingworth, S. & Allen, G. (2016). Effective science communication. A practical guide to surviving as a scientist. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-1170-0
Jasanoff, S. (2017). Science and democracy. En U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. Miller & L. Smith-Doerr (eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 259-287). MIT Press.
Jasanoff, S. & Kim, S.-H. (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. The University of Chicago Press.
Jensen, E. & Buckley, N. (2014). Why people attend science festivals: interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557-573.
Johns-Putra, A. (2016). Climate change in literature and literary studies: from cli-fi, climate change theater and ecopoetry to ecocriticism and climate change criticism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(2), 266-282.https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.385
Kaiser, D., Durant, J., Levenson, T., Wiehe, B. & Linett, P. (2014). Report of findings: September 2013 workshop.
Kaplan, M. & Dahlstrom, M. F. (2017). How narrative functions in entertainment to communicate science. En K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan & D. A. Scheufele (eds.), Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 311-319). Oxford University Press.
Kirby, D. A. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/lab-coats-hollywood
Kirby, D. A. (2017). The changing popular images of science. En K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan & D. A. Scheufele (eds.), Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 291-300). Oxford University Press.
Koppman, S., Cain, C. L. & Leahey, E. (2015). The joy of science: disciplinary diversity in emotional accounts. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(1), 30-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914537527
Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Temple University Press.
Linett, P. (2013). Interview: Ben Lillie on science and the storytelling revival. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12003
Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication. More than providing evidence. JCOM, 15(05), Y01. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/05/JCOM_1505_2016_Y01
Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B. & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067660
Martinez-Conde, S. & Macknik, S. L. (2017). Opinion: finding the plot in science storytelling in hopes of enhancing science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8127-8129. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711790114
McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J. H., Lehr, J. L., Lewenstein, B. V. & Needham, C. (2009). Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/
Michael, M. (1996). Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. En A. Irwin & B. Wynne (eds.), Misunderstanding science? (pp. 107-125). The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(3), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700302
Michael, M., Wilkie, A. & Ovalle, L. (2018). Aesthetics and affect: engaging energy communities. Science as Culture, 27(4), 439-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2018.1490709
Moyer-Gusé, E. & Dale, K. (2017). Narrative persuasion theories. En P. Rössler (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0082
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (ed. by P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse and M. A. Feder). National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12190
Negrete, A. & Lartigue, C. (2010). The science of telling stories: Evaluating science communication via narratives (RIRC method). Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 2(4), 98-110. http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380097133_Negrete%20and%20Lartigue.pdf
Nisbet, M. C. & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
Penders, B. (2017). Marching for the myth of science: a self-destructive celebration of scientific exceptionalism. EMBO reports, 18(9), 1486-1489. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201744935
Pew Research Center Science & Society. (11 de diciembre de 2015). Americans’ interest in science, health and other topics. [Blog post]. http://www.pewresearch.org/science/(2015)/12/11/public-interest-in-science-health-and-other-topics/.
Poliakoff, E. & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ Intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263.
Sarbin, T. R. (1986). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. En Narrative psychology: the storied nature of human conduct (pp. 3-21). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Sardo, A. M. & Grand, A. (2016). Science in culture: audiences’ perspective on engaging with science at a summer festival. Science Communication, 38(2), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016632537
Silva, J. & Bultitude, K. (2009). Best practice in communications training for public engagement with science, technology, engineering and mathematics. JCOM, 8(2), A03. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/02/Jcom0802%282009%29A03
Stengler, E. (2017). Science communicators need to get it: science isn’t fun. En G. Farnell (ed.), The museums blog book (pp. 496-501). MuseumsEtc.
Storksdieck, M., Bevan, B., Risien, J., Nilson, R. & Wills, K. (2018). Charting the intersection of informal STEM education and science communication: results of a social network study. CAISE (Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education).
Svoboda, M. (2016). Cli-fi on the screen(s): patterns in the representations of climate change in fictional films. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.381
Taylor, J. R. & Van Every, E. J. (2008). The emergent organization: communication as its site and surface. Psychology Press.
Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. En Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119-135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7
Tuhus-Dubrow, R. (2013). Cli-fi: birth of a genre. Dissent, 60(3), 58-61. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2013.0069
Vasagar, J. (18 de agosto de 2011). A-levels boom in maths and science credited to «Brian Cox effect». The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/aug/18/a-levels-boom-maths-science
Weick, K. E. (2000). Making sense of the organization. Wiley.
White, P. (2009). Introduction: the emotional economy of science. Isis, 100(4), 792-797. https://doi.org/10.1086/652019
Derechos de autor 2022 Príncipe de Viana
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.
