Framing the genetic testing issue: Discourse and cultural clashes among policy communities

Science Communication

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 133-153

  Murphy, Priscilla ^a   Maynard, Michael ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034367471     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547000022002002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barnett, G. 1996. Quantitative analysis of in-person interviews. In The practice analysis of management accounting, edited by C. Barth. Montvale, NJ: Institute of Management Accountants. Available: http://www.rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/ima/pracana/pamac.htm
2. Bradbury, J. A. 1989. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values 14:380-99.
3. Burke, K. 1966. Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Condit, C. M. 1995. Contributions of the rhetorical perspective to the social placement of medical genetics. Communication Studies 46:118-29.
5. Danowski, J. A. 1993. Network analysis of message content. In Progress in communication sciences, vol. XII, edited by W. D. Richards and G. A. Barnett, 197-221. Norwood, NH: Ablex.
6. Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and R. W. Rycroft. 1989. Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum 4:47-70.
7. Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Durham, F. D. 1998. News frames as social narratives: TWA flight 800. Journal of Communication 48:100-117.
9. Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43:51-58.
10. Fischhoff, B. 1994. Acceptable risk: A conceptual proposal. Risk, Safety & Environment 1:1-28.
11. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1985. Three types of risk assessment: A methodological analysis. In Risk analysis in the private sector, edited by C. Whipple and V. T. Covello, 217-31. New York: Plenum.
12. Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95:1-37.
13. Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263-91.
15. Kosicki, G. M. 1993. Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication 43:100-127.
16. Lynn, F. M. 1986. The interplay of science and values in assessing and regulating environmental risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values 11:40-50.
17. McGoodwin, W. 1996. Advances in genetics research and technologies: Challenges for public policy. U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 104th Cong., 2d sess.
18. Moore, K., R. Burbach, and R. Heeler. 1995. Using neural nets to analyze qualitative data. Marketing Research 7:34-39.
19. Nishimi, R. 1994. Department of Energy's human genome project: Issues arising from research. U.S. House, Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 103d Cong., 2d sess.
20. Pan, D., and G. M. Kosicki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10:55-73.
21. Priest, S. H. 1999. Popular beliefs, media, and biotechnology. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 95-112. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Raymond, H. 1995. Genetic testing for cancer. U.S. Senate, Cancer Coalition of the United States Senate. 104th Cong., 2d sess.
23. Rayner, S., and R. Cantor. 1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis 7:3-9.
24. Renn, O. 1993. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences 26:189-214.
25. Rice, R. E., and J. A. Danowski. 1993. Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voice mail users. Journal of Business Communication 30:369-97.
26. Rogers, C. L. 1999. The importance of understanding audiences. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 179-200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Rowan, K. E. 1994. Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication 19:300-329.
28. Stern, P. C. 1991. Learning through conflict: A realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences 24:99-119.
29. Thompson, M. 1982. A three-dimensional model. In Essays in the sociology of perception, edited by M. Douglas, 31-63. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
30. Throgmorton, J. A. 1991. The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences 24:152-79.
31. Webler, T., D. Levine, H. Rakel, and O. Renn. 1991. A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: The group delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39:253-63.
32. Woelfel, J. 1993. Artificial neural networks for policy-making. Journal of Communication 43:63-80.
33. Woelfel, J. K., S. Danielsen, and J. Woelfel. 1995. Catpac for Windows [Computer program]. Troy, NY: Terra Research & Computing Co., The Galileo Company.
34. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 81-84.
35. Zehr, S. C. 1999. Scientists' representations of uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L Rogers, 3-21. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.