The socio-epistemic constitution of science and technology in the Greek press: An analysis of its presentation

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 225-241

  Dimopoulos, Kostas ^b   Koulaidis, Vasilis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042919153     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/302     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. INRA (Europe), European, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes (Brussels: European Coordination Office and Report International, 1993); Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Indicators 2000 (Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation, 2000); Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, "Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes towards science in Britain," Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 315-330.
2. INRA (Europe), European, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes (Brussels: European Coordination Office and Report International, 1993); Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Indicators 2000 (Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation, 2000); Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, "Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes towards science in Britain," Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 315-330.
3. INRA (Europe), European, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes (Brussels: European Coordination Office and Report International, 1993); Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Indicators 2000 (Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation, 2000); Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, "Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes towards science in Britain," Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 315-330.
4. Todd Gitlin, The Whole World is Watching (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1980), 7.
5. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (1989): 1-37; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Cover Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1995); Leah A. Lievrouw, "Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge," Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7, no. 1 (1990): 1-10.
6. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (1989): 1-37; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Cover Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1995); Leah A. Lievrouw, "Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge," Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7, no. 1 (1990): 1-10.
7. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (1989): 1-37; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Cover Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1995); Leah A. Lievrouw, "Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge," Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7, no. 1 (1990): 1-10.
8. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power"; William R. Elliott and William L. Rosenbenz, "Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology," Communication Research 14, no. 2 (1987): 164-188; Susana Hornig Priest, "Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate," Journal of Communication 45, no. 1 (1995): 39-54; Allan Mazur, "Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies," Journal of Communication 31, no. 1 (1981): 106-115.
9. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power"; William R. Elliott and William L. Rosenbenz, "Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology," Communication Research 14, no. 2 (1987): 164-188; Susana Hornig Priest, "Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate," Journal of Communication 45, no. 1 (1995): 39-54; Allan Mazur, "Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies," Journal of Communication 31, no. 1 (1981): 106-115.
10. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power"; William R. Elliott and William L. Rosenbenz, "Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology," Communication Research 14, no. 2 (1987): 164-188; Susana Hornig Priest, "Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate," Journal of Communication 45, no. 1 (1995): 39-54; Allan Mazur, "Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies," Journal of Communication 31, no. 1 (1981): 106-115.
11. William Gamson, and Andre Modigliani, "Media discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power"; William R. Elliott and William L. Rosenbenz, "Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology," Communication Research 14, no. 2 (1987): 164-188; Susana Hornig Priest, "Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate," Journal of Communication 45, no. 1 (1995): 39-54; Allan Mazur, "Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies," Journal of Communication 31, no. 1 (1981): 106-115.
12. Jon D. Miller, "Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review," Daedalus 112, no. 2 (1983): 29-48; Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science: new horizons or hall of mirrors?" Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 37-43; Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
13. Jon D. Miller, "Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review," Daedalus 112, no. 2 (1983): 29-48; Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science: new horizons or hall of mirrors?" Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 37-43; Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
14. Jon D. Miller, "Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review," Daedalus 112, no. 2 (1983): 29-48; Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science: new horizons or hall of mirrors?" Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 37-43; Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
15. Steven Shapin, "Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making," Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 27-30.
16. Jon D. Miller, "The measurement of civic scientific literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 3 (1998): 203-223; Jon D. Miller, Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).
17. Jon D. Miller, "The measurement of civic scientific literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 3 (1998): 203-223; Jon D. Miller, Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).
18. Jon D. Miller, "The measurement of civic scientific literacy."
19. Jon D. Miller, Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996.
20. Martin Bauer and Ingrid Schoon, "Mapping variety in public understanding of science," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 2 (1993): 141-155.
21. Steven Yearley, "Understanding science from the prospective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: an overview," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 3 (1994): 245-258, at 245.
22. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
23. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
24. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
25. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
26. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
27. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
28. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
29. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
30. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
31. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
32. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
33. Rom Harre, The Philosophies of Science (Oxford: Opus, 1972); Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Karl R. Popper Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970); Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973); David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976): Nigel G. Gilbert and Michael Mulkey, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1999); Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation," in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
34. Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge.
35. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 176.
36. Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science.
37. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life; Klaus Amann and Karin Knorr Cetina, "The fixation of (visual) evidence," in Representation in Scientific Practice, ed. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990), 85-121; Harry M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
38. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life; Klaus Amann and Karin Knorr Cetina, "The fixation of (visual) evidence," in Representation in Scientific Practice, ed. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990), 85-121; Harry M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
39. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life; Klaus Amann and Karin Knorr Cetina, "The fixation of (visual) evidence," in Representation in Scientific Practice, ed. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990), 85-121; Harry M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
40. Bruno Latour, Science in Action; Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science; Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology; Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation."
41. Bruno Latour, Science in Action; Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science; Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology; Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation."
42. Bruno Latour, Science in Action; Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science; Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology; Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation."
43. Bruno Latour, Science in Action; Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science; Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology; Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation."
44. Eleftheros Typos, Eleftherotypia, and Kathimerini are dailies with a Sunday edition, whereas Vima is a Sunday newspaper, with no daily editions.
45. According to data supplied by the Association of the Greek Newspaper Owners, the mean number of issues sold over the period covered by this study (1996-1998) for each newspaper in our sample were: Vima (160,000 issues), Eleftheros Typos (120,000 issues), Eleftherotypia (90,000 issues), and Kathimerini (70,000 issues). These circulations account for the 35 percent of the total readership of the dailies and the 65 percent of the total readership for Sunday newspapers in Greece over the period of the study. Eleftheros Typos and Kathimerini are considered conservative, while Vima and Eleftherotypia are considered liberal newspapers.
46. For instance, such events were: the cloning of Dolly at the Roslin Institute in April 1997, the intergovernmental congress in Kyoto about the control of greenhouse gas emissions in December 1997, the Pathfinder expedition to Mars in August 1997, the outbreak of mad cow disease in March 1996, and the legal battle between Microsoft and the U.S. administration during the whole of 1998.
47. Guildo H. Stempel, "Sample size for classifying subject matter in dailies," Journalism Quarterly 29, no. 3 (1952): 333-334.
48. The exclusion from our sample of articles about medicine and the social sciences was based the fact that in all of the Greek newspapers medical news items appear in a special section other than that of science and technology, while the articles about social sciences are never found in the science and technology section. In this way, the Greek press seems to "frame" both medicine and social sciences as areas distinguishable from the rest of the techno-scientific disciplines.
49. Similar variables have been used in Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990 (London: The Science Museum, 1995); Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 225-234; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 89-101.
50. Similar variables have been used in Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990 (London: The Science Museum, 1995); Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 225-234; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 89-101.
51. Similar variables have been used in Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990 (London: The Science Museum, 1995); Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 225-234; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 89-101.
52. Similar variables have been used in, for example: Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Bharvi Dutt and K. C. Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies," Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 123-140; H. M. Kepplinger, S. C. Ehmig, and C. Ahlheim, Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991); R. Budd, "Attention score: a device for measuring news "play," Journalism Quarterly 41 (1964): 259-262. The Budd score is calculated by adding one point for each column covered by the article's headline, each visual representation accompanying the article, plus one point if the article is located at the upper half of the page and if the article is located in any prominent page of the newspaper (front page, back page, middle page) and/or if it occupies a whole page. The idea for using this variable was borrowed from the study of Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
53. Similar variables have been used in, for example: Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Bharvi Dutt and K. C. Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies," Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 123-140; H. M. Kepplinger, S. C. Ehmig, and C. Ahlheim, Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991); R. Budd, "Attention score: a device for measuring news "play," Journalism Quarterly 41 (1964): 259-262. The Budd score is calculated by adding one point for each column covered by the article's headline, each visual representation accompanying the article, plus one point if the article is located at the upper half of the page and if the article is located in any prominent page of the newspaper (front page, back page, middle page) and/or if it occupies a whole page. The idea for using this variable was borrowed from the study of Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
54. Similar variables have been used in, for example: Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Bharvi Dutt and K. C. Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies," Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 123-140; H. M. Kepplinger, S. C. Ehmig, and C. Ahlheim, Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991); R. Budd, "Attention score: a device for measuring news "play," Journalism Quarterly 41 (1964): 259-262. The Budd score is calculated by adding one point for each column covered by the article's headline, each visual representation accompanying the article, plus one point if the article is located at the upper half of the page and if the article is located in any prominent page of the newspaper (front page, back page, middle page) and/or if it occupies a whole page. The idea for using this variable was borrowed from the study of Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
55. Similar variables have been used in, for example: Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Bharvi Dutt and K. C. Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies," Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 123-140; H. M. Kepplinger, S. C. Ehmig, and C. Ahlheim, Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991); R. Budd, "Attention score: a device for measuring news "play," Journalism Quarterly 41 (1964): 259-262. The Budd score is calculated by adding one point for each column covered by the article's headline, each visual representation accompanying the article, plus one point if the article is located at the upper half of the page and if the article is located in any prominent page of the newspaper (front page, back page, middle page) and/or if it occupies a whole page. The idea for using this variable was borrowed from the study of Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
56. Similar variables have been used in: William A. Evans, Michael Krippendorf, Jae H. Yoon, Paulette Posluszny, and Sari Thomas, "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses," Social Science Quarterly 71, no. 1 (1990): 105-117;
57. Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three U.S. newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6, no. 1 (1997): 49-68. The formulation of this variable was inspired by the answers of the American public on the issue of scientific methodology; see Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation: Science and Technology Indicators 2000.
58. Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three U.S. newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6, no. 1 (1997): 49-68. The formulation of this variable was inspired by the answers of the American public on the issue of scientific methodology; see Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation: Science and Technology Indicators 2000.
59. A similar variable has been used in William A. Evans, Michael Krippendorf, Jae H. Yoon, Paulette Posluszny, and Sari Thomas, "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses";
60. th PCST Conference. Science without Frontiers, Berlin: September 1998.
61. th PCST Conference. Science without Frontiers, Berlin: September 1998.
62. Similar variables have been used in Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and TechnologY in the British Press, 1946-1990.
63. Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne, "Science journalism in Australia," Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 4 (1995): 411-128.
64. Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne, "Science journalism in Australia," Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 4 (1995): 411-128.
65. Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne, "Science journalism in Australia," Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 4 (1995): 411-128.
66. INRA (Europe) Europeans, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes.
67. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Sharon M. Friedman, Kara Villamil, Robyn A. Suriano, and Brenda P. Egolf, "Alar and apples: newspapers, risk and media responsibility," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 1-20; Neil Hutton, "Interactions between the formal UK school science curriculum and the public understanding of science," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 41-53.
68. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Sharon M. Friedman, Kara Villamil, Robyn A. Suriano, and Brenda P. Egolf, "Alar and apples: newspapers, risk and media responsibility," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 1-20; Neil Hutton, "Interactions between the formal UK school science curriculum and the public understanding of science," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 41-53.
69. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Sharon M. Friedman, Kara Villamil, Robyn A. Suriano, and Brenda P. Egolf, "Alar and apples: newspapers, risk and media responsibility," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 1-20; Neil Hutton, "Interactions between the formal UK school science curriculum and the public understanding of science," Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 41-53.
70. Renate G. Bader, "How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: a case study," Journalism Quarterly 67, no. 1 (1990): 88-96; Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian"; Bharvi Dutt and K. C., Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies."
71. Renate G. Bader, "How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: a case study," Journalism Quarterly 67, no. 1 (1990): 88-96; Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian"; Bharvi Dutt and K. C., Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies."
72. Renate G. Bader, "How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: a case study," Journalism Quarterly 67, no. 1 (1990): 88-96; Abigail Clayton, Micheline Hanckock-Beaulieu, and Jack Meadows, "Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: a study of the Times and The Guardian"; Bharvi Dutt and K. C., Garg, "An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies."
73. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology ; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses"; Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
74. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology ; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses"; Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
75. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology ; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses"; Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
76. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology ; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses"; Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
77. Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology ; Marianne G. Pellenchia, "Trends in science coverage"; William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses"; Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press," Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
78. William A. Evans et al., "Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses," p. 116.
79. Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology; Urlike Felt, "Fabricating scientific success stories," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 4 (1993): 375-390.
80. Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology; Urlike Felt, "Fabricating scientific success stories," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 4 (1993): 375-390.
81. Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press."
82. Friedhelm Neidhardt, "The public as a communication system," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 4 (1993): 339-350.
83. st Century, Vienna: September 27-30, 2000.
84. st Century, Vienna: September 27-30, 2000.
85. st Century, Vienna: September 27-30, 2000.
86. Martin Bauer, "Science in the media as cultural indicator: contextualizing surveys with media analysis," in Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, eds. Meinolf Dierkes and Claudia von Grote (Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000).
87. Jon Miller, Rafael Pardo, and Fujio Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United State, Japan and Canada (Madrid: Foundation BBV, 1997).
88. Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology.
89. Anders Hansen, "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press"; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology.
90. The notion of "backstage" is used here as a place "where the impression fostered by a given performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course"; see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959).
91. John M. Ziman, An Introduction to Science Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, S. Schwartzmann, Pam Scott, and M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1994).
92. John M. Ziman, An Introduction to Science Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, S. Schwartzmann, Pam Scott, and M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1994).
93. Jon D. Miller, "Scientific Literacy: A conceptual and empirical review." The examination of the Greek press's contribution to the public understanding of this dimension is out of the scope of this paper.
94. Peter Fensham, "School science and its problems with scientific literacy," in Science Today, eds. Ralph Levinson and Jeff Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 119-136; David Layton, Edgar Jenkins, S. Macgill, and A. Davey, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education (Driffield, UK: Studies in Education, 1993); Alberto Elena, "Exemplary lives: biographies of scientists on the screen," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 205-223; Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (London: Verso, 1999).
95. Peter Fensham, "School science and its problems with scientific literacy," in Science Today, eds. Ralph Levinson and Jeff Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 119-136; David Layton, Edgar Jenkins, S. Macgill, and A. Davey, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education (Driffield, UK: Studies in Education, 1993); Alberto Elena, "Exemplary lives: biographies of scientists on the screen," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 205-223; Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (London: Verso, 1999).
96. Peter Fensham, "School science and its problems with scientific literacy," in Science Today, eds. Ralph Levinson and Jeff Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 119-136; David Layton, Edgar Jenkins, S. Macgill, and A. Davey, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education (Driffield, UK: Studies in Education, 1993); Alberto Elena, "Exemplary lives: biographies of scientists on the screen," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 205-223; Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (London: Verso, 1999).
97. Peter Fensham, "School science and its problems with scientific literacy," in Science Today, eds. Ralph Levinson and Jeff Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 119-136; David Layton, Edgar Jenkins, S. Macgill, and A. Davey, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education (Driffield, UK: Studies in Education, 1993); Alberto Elena, "Exemplary lives: biographies of scientists on the screen," Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 205-223; Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (London: Verso, 1999).
98. Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesmer, "Institutional ecology, "translations" and boundary objects, amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology," Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 387-420.