Login

Search

  • Mar 21, 2013 Commentary

    ‘Science-communication’ journals: navigating through uncertainties

    by Manoj Kumar Patairiya

    Any development issue has mainly two dimensions — ‘interest of few and interest of many’, so is ‘science-communication’ as well, which leads to unwarranted but unavoidable uncertainties. Unless the former learn to sacrifice their ‘illegitimate interests’, the very objective of a development issue will continue to suffer, putting the latter at a risk of sacrificing their ‘legitimate interests’. The role of ‘science-communication’ is vital in today’s world, especially where complex issues of conflicting interests of science, industry, business, politics, and mass media are increasingly coming to the fore, and public and policy makers need to understand the ‘true science’; the role of ‘communicating science-communication’ has much larger value and impact in analyzing, understanding, and shaping the way how ‘public and political understanding of science’ can be improved with new models, methodologies, and practices. Science has a bearing on the way one thinks, behaves and conducts in the society. Thinking scientific is establishing harmony with nature. It could best be promoted by communicating science in a scientific way, which has therefore come up to be an evolved technique to channel ourselves to scientifically evolved societies, because distortions if any here have greater ramifications. A science-communication journal is dedicated to scientific and technological development as the entire science and technology establishment is. The present piece while deliberating on current scenario of science-communication journals vis-à-vis science-communication profession, describes many challenges poised, and looks at the future prospects and possible solutions, based on first hand observations and interactions.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Mar 21, 2013 Commentary

    JCOM — what do I expect form a science communication journal

    by Matteo Merzagora

    The JCOM I would appreciate reading should address in real time the emerging trends and pressing issues concerning Science in society; it would be targeted not only to researchers in STS et similia, but also to the constantly expanding universe of science communication practitioners; it would make sure to avoid the hidden forms of social exclusion which are dangerously lurking behind all communication activity, including science communication.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Mar 21, 2013 Commentary

    As requested: brief, frank, and informal

    by Bruna De Marchi

    Scientific journalism ought to pay attention not only to the “products” of science, but also to the ways in which it operates in any given historical and political   context. A critical analysis of the presently dominant rhetoric of innovation and unlimited growth is necessary to shed light on the relationship between science  and democracy. Equally profitable would be a thorough investigation of past and present controversies on the role of scientists in decision-making.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Mar 21, 2013 Article

    Diffusing scientific knowledge to innovative experts

    by Svend Tveden-Nyborg , Morten Misfeldt , Birte Boelt

    Communicating science to scientists works well thanks to well-defined communication structures based on both printed material in peer-reviewed publications   and oral presentations, e.g.\ at conferences and seminars. However, when science is communicated to practitioners, the structures become fuzzy. We are   looking at how to implement Web2.0 technologies to Danish seed scientists communicating to seed consultants, agricultural advisors, and seed growers, and  we are met with the challenge of securing effective knowledge diffusion to the community. Our investigation's focal point is on Rogers' theoretical framework  ``Diffusion of Innovation'' (DOI), as we look at how DOI may affect the Danish seed industry if science communication is redesigned in accordance with the  framework. During our project workshop, participants recognized trends and characteristics from DOI in the Danish seed community and argued for more  collaboration between scientists and practitioners. This can be done by implementing fast-learning via online website, but it needs to be assisted by   slower-paced face-to-face learning to lessen the risk of a digital knowledge divide within the community.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Mar 21, 2013 Commentary

    While changes in the “how” are exciting, changes in the “how much” could be exasperating

    by Gema Revuelta orcid logo

    In terms of efficiency, managing the effects of overpublising (the sheer volume of new papers published each week) has become seriously challenging for science communication researchers. This comment analyzes causes and consequences of this situation and proposes to research journals to take into considerations the following elements: a) special attention to headline and abstract, b) more visible and updated keywords and c) a clear structure of content and a shortening of the average number of pages per paper.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Feb 27, 2013 Article

    Newspaper portrayals of spinal manipulation therapy: Canada, United States, and the United Kingdom

    by Christen Rachul , Heather Boon , Timothy Caulfield

    Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is a popular form of treatment for back pain among other musculoskeletal disorders, and it has received increasing media attention. Yet, despite its popularity, SMT is surrounded by controversy, mainly in regards to issues of safety and efficacy. To better understand how the media portrays SMT, we explored the content of print newspapers in Canada, the U.S., and U.K., including article framing, evidence of efficacy, risks and benefits, and the overall tone of the article in terms of whether or not the article was supporting, opposing or neutral about SMT. Results indicate that safety concerns and evidence for efficacy are rarely mentioned, but framing plays a large role in portrayals of SMT in each of the countries.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Jan 28, 2013 Article

    Using a scientific literacy cluster to determine participant attitudes in scientific events in Japan, and potential applications to improving science communication

    by Shishin Kawamoto , Minoru Nakayama , Miki Saijo

    Various science events including Science Cafés have been held in Japan. However, there is the question whether these are events in which all people in society can participate? In particular, methods for checking whether or not the event attracts the participants targeted by the organizers have not yet been well established. In this paper, the authors have designed a simplified questionnaire to identify the participants’ attitudes toward science, technology and society, which can then be grouped into four clusters. When applied to various science cafés, the results revealed that participants consisted of Cluster 1 “Inquisitive  type” and Cluster 2 “Sciencephile” who are interested in science and technology. The cafes studied did not provide sufficient appeal to people of Clusters 3 and  4 who are not interested in science and technology without applying some inventive methods. Our method provides a means of objectivelyevaluating the tendencies of participants in science communication events in order to improve the spread of science communications within society.

    Volume 12Issue 012013

  • Dec 21, 2012 Commentary

    NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana: disruptive prototypes and experimental governance of nanotechnologies in the hackerspaces

    by Denisa Kera

    New forms of co-working spaces and community labs, such as Hackerspaces and Fablabs, but also open science and citizen science initiatives, by involving new actors often described as makers, tinkerers, and hackers enable innovation and research outside the walls of academia and industry. These alternative and global innovation networks are test beds for studying new forms of public engagement and participation in emergent scientific fields, such as  nanotechnology. The article shows how these grassroots and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) or Do-It-With- Others (DIWO) research subcultures connect politics with design, community building with prototype testing, and how they establish an experimental approach for policy deliberation. We will consider a case study of a temporary, ad hoc and mobile NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana, Slovenia, which specializes in nanoscale materials and designs, to demonstrate the potential of prototypes and collective tinkering to become models for public involvement in emergent science and technology fields. This Hackerspace model of governance offers an alternative to the usual route of disruptive innovation, which starts in the R&D laboratory where it waits to be scrutinized by some government or regulatory body and be utilized by a start-up or mega corporation, and only then be safely taken up by the public. Hackerspaces operate through “disruptive prototypes” that create decentralized and nonlinear value chains and interactions between research, design and policy. Adoption of technology goes hand in hand with collective tinkering, and deliberation and assessment are happening simultaneously while prototyping. In this sense, disruptive prototypes can be said to support experimental governance. This policy closely follows some recent calls for “greater reflexiveness in the R&D process” via anticipatory policy and real-time assessment approaches, rather than more common, timeworn precautionary principles.

    Volume 11Issue 042012

  • Dec 21, 2012 Commentary

    Nanotechnologies and emerging cultural spaces for the public communication of science and technologies

    by Paolo Magaudda

    In the last decade, social studies of nanotechnology have been characterized by a specific focus on the role of communication and cultural representations.  Scholars have documented a proliferation of the forms through which this research area has been represented, communicated and debated within different social contexts. This Jcom section concentrates on the proliferation of cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are articulated and shaped in society. The intent is that of showing how these different cultural spaces — with their specific features and implications — raise multiple issues and involve distinct perspectives concerning nanotechnology. More specifically, the articles presented in the section outline and characterize three different cultural spaces where nanotechnologies are communicated: science museums, hackerspaces and the web. The overall section’s argumentation is that the study of the  communication of nanotechnology requires to consider a multiplicity of different cultural spaces and, moreover, that the attention to the differences existing between these spaces is a powerful perspective to explore and make sense of the varieties of ways in which nanotechnologies circulate in society.

    Science museums as political places. Representing nanotechnology in European science museums

    by Brice Laurent

    NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana: disruptive prototypes and experimental governance of nanotechnologies in the hackerspaces

    by Denisa Kera

    Fear of being irrelevant? Science communication and nanotechnology as an ‘internal’ controversy

    by Andrea Lorenzet

    Volume 11Issue 042012

Total: 1483 records