نظریه‌های ارتباطات عمومی علم: کمبودها، انحراف‌ها و گفت‌وگوها

نویسنده

دانشیار مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

این ایده که علم بسیار پیچیده‌تر از آن است که عموم مردم قادر به درک آن باشند، اگر چه شاید در عصر حاضر تفکر شایعی نباشد، اما سال‌ها بینش رایج در میان اندیشمندان بود. گسترش نفوذ رسانه‌ها و ابزار ارتباطات جمعی، توجه فزاینده عامه مردم به علم فناوری و همچنین آغاز رسانه‌ای‌شدن علم، این حقیقت را روشن می‌نماید که به‌واسطه پیچیدگی‌های مفاهیم علمی، وجود یک میانجی‌گر قدرتمند، میان دانشمندان و عموم مردم ضروری است.
از این رو، هدف این مطالعه ارائه الگوهای ارتباطی برای ایجاد شبکه علمی است. برای رسیدن به این هدف، ناگزیر باید تاریخ علم و نقش دانشمندان در این فرایند مطالعه شود. یافته‌های این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد، در عمومی‌سازی علم توجه به موضوعات علمی، اختلاف نظر میان متخصصان، نهادینه‌شدن علم در جامعه و ثبات مرزهای حرفه‌ای ضروری است، بنابراین باید نقش کلیدی ارتباط در فرایندهای تکاملی و تعریف دوباره مفاهیم علمی، مشارکت شهروندان و دموکراسی علمی مد نظر قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Theories of General Communications of Science: Deficiencies, Deviations and Explorations

نویسنده [English]

  • Akram Ghadimi
Associate Professor at National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Although, the idea that science is much more complicated than the public is able to understand it, is not anymore a general thinking among scientist. However, the expansion of media influence and communication tools, the growing public interest in science and technology and also medialization of science, underpins the need for mediation between scientists and general public, made necessary by the complexity of scientific notions.
Hence, the purpose of this study is to find a communication model for creating a scientific network. To achieve this goal, the history of science and the role of scientists in this process should be studied. The findings illustrated that in the popularization of science, attention to scientific issues, the disarrangement between science professionals, institutionalization of science in society and the stability of professional boundaries are necessary, therefore, the key role of communication in evolutionary process and the redefinition of scientific concepts, citizens participation and scientific democracy should be considered.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Science Communications
  • Network
  • Public understanding of science
  • Scientific Democracy
1]    Raichvarg, D. and Jacques, J. (1991). “Savants et Ignorants. Une Histoire de la Vulgarisation des Sciences”, Paris: Seuil.

[2]   Pais, A. (1982). “Subtle is the Lord...: the Science and Life of Albert Einstein”, New York: Oxford University Press. OF D EFICITS, D EVIATIONS AND DIALOGU ES 75.

[3]   Hansen, A. (1992). “Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press”, Public Understanding of Science, 3: 111–34.

[4]   Peters, H. P. (1995). “The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures”, Media Culture & Society, 17: 31–48.

[5]   Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2002). “Biotech remains unloved by the more informed”, Nature, 416: 261.

[6]   Wynne, B. (1989). “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information”, Environment Magazine, 31: pp. 10–39.

[7]   —— (1995). “Public understanding of science”, in Jasanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: pp. 361–89.

[8]   Dunwoody, S. and Scott, B. (1982). “Scientists as mass media sources”, Journalism Quarterly, pp. 59: 52–9.

[9]   Bucchi, M. and Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). “Big science, little news: science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997”, Public Understanding of Science, 12: pp. 7–24.

[10]   Phillips, D. M. (1991). “Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community”, New England Journal of Medicine, 11 Oct: 1180–3.

[11]   Goodell, R. (1977). “The Visible Scientists, Boston”, MA: Little Brown.

[12]   Cloıˆtre, M. and Shinn, T. (1985). “Expository practice: social, cognitive and epistemological linkages”, in Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. (eds) Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularization, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 31–60.

[13]   Hilgartner, S. (1990). “The dominant view of popularization”, Social Studies of Science, 20: pp. 519–39.

[14]   Fleck, L. (1935). “Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftliche Tatsache (Eng. tr. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact”, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

[15]   Collins, H. M. (1987). “Certainty and the public understanding of science: science on television”, Social Studies of Science, 17: 689–713.

[16]   Whitley, R. (1985). “Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers”, in Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. (eds), Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularization, Dordrecht: Reidel, , pp. 3–28.

[17]   Balmer, B. (1990). “Scientism, science and scientists”, research paper, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.

[18]   Jacobi, D. (1987). “Textes et Images de la Vulgarisation Scientifique”, Bern: Peter Lang.

[19]   Gregory, J and Miller, S. (1998). “Science in Public. Communication, Culture, and Credibility”, London: Plenum.

[20]   Clemens, E. (1994). “The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate”, in Glen, W. (ed.) The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[21]   —— (1997). “The public science of Louis Pasteur: the experiment on anthrax vaccine in the popular press of the time”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19: pp. 181–209.

[22]   Grundmann, R. and Cavaille´, J. P. (2000). “Simplicity in science and its publics”, Science as Culture, 9: pp. 353–89.

[23]   Macdonald, S. and Silverstone, R. (1992). “Science on display: the representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibition”, Public Understanding of Science, 1: pp. 69–87.

[24]   Grmek, M. D. (1989). Histoire du SIDA, Paris, Payot.

[25]   Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[26]   Cooter, R. and Pumfrey, S. (1994). “Science in popular culture”, History of Science, 32: pp. 237–67.

[27]   Michael, M. (2002) ‘Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: heterogeneity and the public understanding of science’, Science Technology & Human Values, 27: 357–78.

[28]   Lewenstein, B. (1995a). “Science and the media”, in Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 343–59.

[29]   —— (1995b). “From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga”, Social Studies of Science, 25: 403–36.

[30]   Bucchi, M. (1996). “When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication”, Public Understanding of Science, 5: 375–94.

[31]   —— (1998). “Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication”, London and New York: Routledge.

[32]   Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps. Science, Genetics and Popular Culture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

[33]   Zola, E. (1871). La Fortune des Rougon (edn 1981, Flammarion, Paris).

[34]   Lewontin, R. (1996). “In the blood”, New York Review of Books, 23 May: pp. 31–2.

[35]   Brown, P. and Mikkelsen, E. (1990). “No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action, Berkeley”, CA: University of California Press.

[36]   Callon, M. (1999). “The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge”, Science, Technology & Society, 4: 81–94.

[37]   Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2001). “Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la de´mocratie technique”, Paris: Seuil.

[38]   Trench, B. (2006). “Science communication and citizen science: how dead is the deficit model?” paper presented at PCST9 Conference, Seoul, 17–19 May 2006.

[39]   Stilgoe, J., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2005). “The Public Value of Science”, London: Demos.

[40]   Bauer, M. and Gregory, J. (2007). “From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain”, in Bucchi, M. and Bauer, M. (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, London: Routledge: pp. 33–52.

[41]   Mazur, A. (1981). “Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies”, Journal of Communication, 31: pp. 106–15.

[42]   Neresini, F. (2000) ‘And man descended from the sheep: the public debate on cloning in the Italian press’, Public Understanding of Science, 9: 359–82.

[43]   Andersen, S. and Burns, T. (1996). “The European Union and the erosion of parliamentary democracy: a study of post-parliamentary governance, in Andersen” S. and Eliassen, K. A. (eds) European Union – How Democratic is It? London: Sage, pp. 227–51.

[44]      Levidow, L. and Marris, C. (2001). “Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology”, Science and Public Policy, 28: pp. 345–60