Participation and communication approaches that influence public and media response to scientific risk: A comparative study of two biosecurity events in New Zealand

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 195-203

  McEntee, Marie J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Biosecurity; Media Communication; Participatory Science; Risk Communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 61349104773     PISSN: 18331882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v02i04/52400     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Allan, S. (2002). Media, Risk and Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (M. Ritter, Trans. First ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
3. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (A. Weisz, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
4. Biosecurity New Zealand. (2005). Biosecurity New Zealand, from http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz
5. British House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and Society, Third Report, from http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
6. Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science Communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202. (Pubitemid 37052489)
7. Cottle, S. (1998). Urlich Beck, 'Risk Society" and the Media: A Catastrophic View? European Journal of Communication, 13(1), 5-32.
8. Cottle, S. (2000). TV News, Lay voices and the visualisation of environmental risks. In S. Allan, B. Adam & C. Carter (Eds.), Environmental Risks and the Media (pp. 29-44). London: Routledge.
9. Devine, S. (1997). The Science Reforms Seven Years On: A Personal View. New Zealand Science Review, 54(3-4), 70-74.
10. Devine, S. (2003). A systems look at the science reforms. New Zealand Science Review, 60(2-3), 70-74.
11. Dew, K., & Fitzgerald, R. (Eds.). (2004). Challenging science: issues for New Zealand society in the 21st century. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Ltd.
12. Dickson, D. (2000). Science and its Public: The Need for a 'Third Way'. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 917-923.
13. English, P. (1998, June 23). War on tussock moth 'a first'. The New Zealand Herald, p. A7.
14. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
15. Frampton, R. (2002, January 15). Well-considered approach to swatting indiscriminate pest. The New Zealand Herald, p. A11.
16. Gamson, W. J., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
17. Gristock, J. (2001). Science and Society: towards a democratic science: A report of the British Council seminar held at Moonfleet Manor, Fleet, Dorset (No. Seminar 0027). Moonfleet Manor, Fleet, Dorset: The British Council.
18. Hosking, G., Clearwater, J., Handiside, J., Kay, M., & Simmons, N. (2003). Tussock moth eradication - a success story from New Zealand. International Journal of Pest Management, 49(1), 17-24. (Pubitemid 36117469)
19. Legat, N. (1997, July 1). Veil of fears: Is the tussock moth spraying making people sick? North & South, 59-67.
20. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (1998). Operation Ever Green: Produced by TVZoo.
21. MoRST. (2002). Engaging with New Zealanders on science-related issues. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST).
22. New Zealand Audit Office. (2003). Case Study 3 - Response to the incursion of the Painted Apple Moth. Wellington, New Zealand.
23. Smith, N. (1996, August 27). Chocks away for anti-moth air spraying. The New Zealand Herald, p. A7.
24. Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming To Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World (First ed.). New York: Syracuse University Press.