Search

This issue sees the implementation of new designs for the JCOM website and articles and there are plans for further updates over the next year. In a recent survey, we have explored readers opinions of the journal with a view to introducing improvements. Your interests are diverse, which is not surprising for a field which ranges from books and print media, to museums and interactive technologies. We are also reviewing our peer review process to ensure that it meets the needs of our authors.

“I hope to offer a unique artistic perspective on a topic which is hidden from our everyday view” States my application. Will I be able to fulfil this task? Here is a short summary of my experiences as a visiting artist researcher

The notion of ‘artistic research’ is a buzzword in contemporary cultural policy, scientific and artistic discourses. This text is not trying to add another note to the polyphony of attempts to define the concept. Rather, it aims to trace and analyse some possible backgrounds of emergence, suggesting that the myriad of definitions and descriptions of artistic research is rooted in the most varying and to a point contradictory motivations.

To observe art and science in interaction offered a great opportunity for me as cultural anthropologist to learn about the production of climate knowledge. Like ethnographers, artists entered the world of science, observed climate scientists and participated in their daily routines. They dissected elements of the scientific process and focused on science as a social practice. For scientists and artists, a process of “self-identification via the other” [Kramer, 1993] was set into motion. The artwork reflects this process by “mimicking” scientific procedures and by linking human sentiment and material sediments. Introducing the anthropological imagery of the trickster, I suggest that the project challenges a basic modern constitution — the separation of nature and culture — and brings the debate about climate change back into society.

The 2nd annual conference of the ad hoc group Science Communication was dedicated to research on risk and uncertainty as important challenges for the present practice of science communication. The review firstly offers a short portrait of the ad hoc group Science Communicaiton as a newly established network of communication scholars and secondly reconstructs the course of the highliy spirited debate during the conference in Jena.

The literature illustrates how media research on the energy question is characterized by a limited focus on separate energy options, resulting in a lack of research into the diversity of and mutual relations between various energy options. This paper reports on a quantitative content analysis of eight Belgian newspapers (N=1181), focusing on whether certain energy options are systematically more covered in certain regions, types of newspapers and/or types of newspaper sections. The results show that five energy options dominate the debate and that there are minimal differences per region, but remarkable differences between types of newspapers and newspaper sections.

Taking a wider view, departing from the specific case of the Hamburg exchange between artists and climate scientists, this comment envisages some radical potential for the collaboration of artists and climate scientists: moving beyond the traditional boundaries of social systems, artistic research and climate science may engage in a shared transdisciplinary learning process. They may communicate with the rest of society by engaging with others to develop ‘spaces of possibilities’, thus nurturing the creative resilience of communities.

After the first paradigm shift from the deficit model to two-way communication, the field of science communication is in need of a second paradigm shift. This second shift sees communication as an inherently distributed element in the socio-technical system of science and technology development. Science communication is understood both from a systems perspective and its consecutive parts, in order to get a grip on the complex and dynamic reality of science, technology development and innovation in which scientists, industrial and governmental partners and the lay public collaborate. This essay reflects on the under-development of system thinking in science communication and the need to fix this. Legitimation for the second paradigm shift is found in the ‘crisis in social sciences’ that has led to a revival of system theory to balance the deterministic thinking in our grounding discipline. This essay concludes with the idea of a ‘Communication for Innovation-Lab’ as an experimental setting in which whole/part thinking in science communication can be shaped according to this second paradigm shift, forming seed crystals for future developments.

This set of comments reports experiences from a recent “science-meets-arts”-project in Germany, in which students from the University of Fine Arts in Hamburg (HFBK) shared day-to-day life in climate research groups for several months. The project was envisioned as a process of mutual inspiration with the aim of producing a joint exhibition and symposium at the end. This paper introduces the project as well as the subsequent commentaries and also presents some of my own observations.

This paper tries to 1) identify the dominant media frames of science and 2) compare media selection and framing of science-related articles in Croatian daily newspapers during two politically and socioculturally different periods: the late socialism and the (post)transition. The research methodology was based on content and frame analysis which encompassed articles on science in daily press with the highest readership between 1986–1988, and 2006–2008. The main findings indicate changes in the selection of science topics as well as in the representation of individual frames. Changes reflected not only current events in the world of science but also wider social and journalistic values, as well as evaluations of the importance of specific topics.