Science Media Centres and public policy

Three key questions guide this thesis. First, how is public communication of science and technology (PCST) organized in different models of expert–public interaction? Second, how do different models of science and technology popularization frame science and technology narratives? Third, building on the first two questions, what are the implications of these models for the social contract between science and society? This thesis involves both an exploratory cross-case analysis of PCST and a comparative mixed-methods study. The case studies were conducted using a broad array of methods: reviewing policy documents, articles from 3 newspapers over 12–18 years, and the study of participation in experiments and new infrastructures for doing citizen science through documents, observations, and interviews. This thesis has eight crucial contributions to an improved understanding of public communication of science and technology. By critically examining the three science communication models, dissemination, dialogue and participation, the thesis makes five contributions: 1) a study of how public appreciation of science and technology are promoted by the use of bias; 2) a study of how public engagement with science and technology are promoted by mediatization processes; 3) a study of how researchers in their popularization activities promote critical understanding of science and technology being modest witnesses; 4) a study of the dialogue models’ room for participation in knowledge and policy construction processes; and 5) in studying the participation model, a better understanding of citizen science and boundary infrastructures. Finally, the thesis has three more general contributions: 6) it represents the first comprehensive examination of science communication policy in Norway; 7) focusing on technology, it links science communication research and innovation studies; and 8) it contributes to a more analytical approach studying the three science communication models as trading zones within the context of the Nordic model of science communication.

Journal of Science Communication, 2020

This article provides a framework for analysing changes and continuities in science communication. The field is challenged by three contexts: (1) 'post-normal situations' of coping with uncertainties, value questions, an urgency to take action, and associated political pressures; (2) a dramatically changing media environment, and (3) a polarizing discourse culture. We refine the concept of post-normal science to make it more applicable to analyse public science communication in an era of digital media networks. Focussing on changes in the interactions between scientists and journalists, we identify two ideal types: normal and post-normal science communication, and conclude that the boundaries of science and journalism are blurring and under renegotiation. Scientists and journalists develop new shared role models, norms, and practices. Both groups are increasingly acting as advocates for common goods that emphasize the emerging norms of post-normal science communication: transparency, interpretation, advocacy and participation.

Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 2014

Three models of expert-public interaction in science and technology communication are central: the dissemination model (often called the deficit model), the dialogue model, and the participation model. These three models constitute a multi-model framework for studying science and technology communication and are often described along an evolutionary continuum, from dissemination to dialogue, and finally to participation. Underlying this description is an evaluation claiming that the two latter are “better” than the first. However, these three models can coexist as policy instruments, and do not exclude each other. Since 1975, concerns with public engagement over time have led to a mode that is more dialogical across the three models within science and technology communication policy in Norway. Through an active policy, sponsored hybrid forums that encourage participation have gradually been developed. In addition, social media increasingly allows for spontaneous public involvement in an increasing number of hybrid forums. Dialogue and participation thus have become crucial parts of science and technology communication and format public engagement and expertise.

Communicating Science in Social Contexts, 2008

2019

This Programme investigated the relationship between science, politics and publics in the aftermath of an influential 2000 UK House of Lords Science and Society report. We conceptualised top-down initiatives promising greater transparency around the use of scientific evidence in policymaking and opportunities for public engagement around research and innovation agendas, as well as bottom-up instances of public mobilisation around science as an effort to make science public. In principle, such a movement seemed to speak directly to wider arguments for ‘opening up’ controversial domains of evidence and research to public scrutiny of framing, tacit assumptions, and alternative forms of expertise. Yet, these promises raised a number of dilemmas that we sought to examine in a range of cases.

Marketing of Scientific and Research Organisations, 2014