Epistemology, structure and urgency: The sociology of financial and scientific journalists

Sociological Research Online

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 86-97

  Cooper, Geoff ^a   Ebeling, Mary ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Epistemology; Fields; Financial understanding of science; Nanotechnology; Scepticism; Sociology of journalists; STS

Indexed keywords

EID: 36649002899     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13607804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5153/sro.1558     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. ANDERSON A, ALLAN S, PETERSON A, and WILKINSON C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press, Science Communication, 27(1) pp 200-220
2. BARNETT, J, CARR, A, and CLIFT R (2006) Going public: risk, trust and public understanding of nanotechnologies, in Hunt and Mehta op cit
3. BARNES, B (1978) Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, London: Routledge
4. BARRY, A and SLATER, D (editors) (2005) The Technological Economy, Abingdon: Routledge
5. BENSON, R and NEVEU, E (2005) Introduction: field theory as a work in progress, in R. Benson and E. Neveu (editors) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge: Polity
6. BLOOR, D (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery, London: Routledge
7. BOURDIEU, P (1998) On Television and Journalism, London: Pluto Press
8. BOURDIEU, P (2005) The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field, in R. Benson and E. Neveu (editors) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge: Polity
9. CALLON, M (editor) (1998) The Laws of the Markets, Oxford: Blackwell
10. CHAMPAGNE, P (2005) The 'double dependency': the journalistic field between politics and markets, in R. Benson and E. Neveu (editors) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge: Polity
11. th July
12. COBB, M.D (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology, Science Communication, 27 (1) pp 221-239
13. DERRIDA, J (2002) Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001, Stanford: Stanford University Press
14. DERRIDA, J and STIEGLER, B (2002) Echographies of Television, Cambridge: Polity
15. DUNWOODY, S (1986) The science writing inner club: a communication link between science and the lay public, in S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers, (editors) Scientists and Journalists: reporting science as news, New York: The Free Press, 155-169
16. EINSIEDEL, E and GOLDENBERG, L (2006) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front, in Hunt and Mehta op cit
17. ETZKOWITZ, H AND LEYDESDORFF, L (editors) (2000) Special issue: Triple Helix, Research Policy, 29 (2) pp 109-330
18. GIBBONS, M, LIMOGES C, NOWOTNY H, SHWARTZMAN, S, SCOTT, P and TROW, M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage
19. GILBERT, N and MULKAY, M (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: a sociological analysis of scientists' discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
20. HANSEN, A (1994) Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British Press, Public Understanding of Science, 3(2) pp 111-134
21. HARDING, S (1996) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is 'strong objectivity'? in E. Keller and H. Longino (editors) Feminism and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press
22. HAYLES, K (editor) (2004) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience, Bristol: Intellect
23. HUNT, G and MEHTA, M (editors) (2006) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics and law, London: Earthscan
24. KIERNAN, V (2003). Embargoes and science news, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (4): 903-920
25. KNORR-CETINA, K and PREDA, A (editors) (2004) The Sociology of Financial Markets, Oxford: Oxford University Press
26. LATOUR, B (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern, Critical Inquiry, 30 (Winter) 225-248
27. LATOUR, B and WOOLGAR, S (1986) Laboratory Life: the construction of scientific facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
28. LEWENSTEIN, B (1995) Science and the media, in S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson and T. Pinch (editors) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage
29. LEWENSTEIN, B (editor) (2005) Special Edition: Nanotechnology and the public, Science Communication, 27 (2) pp 169-299
30. LYNCH, M (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
31. MACKENZIE, D and MILLO, Y (2003) Constructing a market, performing theory: the historical sociology of a derivatives exchange, American Journal of Sociology, 109 (1) pp 107-145
32. NELKIN, D. (1987). Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York, Freeman
33. NISBET, M.C and MOONEY, C (2007) Framing Science, Science, 316, p56
34. NOWOTNY, H, SCOTT P and GIBBONS, M (2001) Re-thinking Science, Cambridge: Polity
35. PETERS, H.P (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures, Media, Culture and Society, 17 pp 31-48
36. POLLNER, M (2002) Inside the bubble: communion, cognition and deep play at the intersection of Wall Street and cyberspace, in S. Woolgar (editor) Virtual Society? Technology, cyberbole, reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press
37. SCHMIERBACH, M (2005) Method matters: the influence of methodology on journalists' assessments of social science research, Science Communication, 26 (3) 269-287
38. STEPHENS, L.F (2005) News narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers, Science Communication, 27(1) pp 175-199
39. TUCHMAN, G. (1978). Making News: A study in the construction of reality. New York, The Free Press
40. WOOLGAR, S (1981) Interests and explanation in the social study of science, Social Studies of Science, 11, 365-94
41. WOOLGAR, S and COOPER, G (1999) Do artefacts have ambivalence? Social Studies of Science, 29 (3) pp 433-449