Visualizing nanotechnology: The impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 325-337

  Landau, Jamie ^a   Groscurth, Christopher R ^b   Wright, Lanelle ^a   Condit, Celeste M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249085775     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662507080551     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A. and Wilkinson, C. (2005) " The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press, " Science Communication 27 (2). 200-20.
2. Baigrie, B.S., ed. (1996) Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
3. Barthes, R. (1999 [ 1964 ]) " Rhetoric of the Image, " in J. Evans and S. Hall (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, pp. 33-40. London: SAGE Publications.
4. Ben-David, J. (1984) The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study-With a New Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Cobb, M.D. (2005) " Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology, " Science Communication 27 (2). 221-39.
6. Davies, J.C. (2006) " Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology " January. URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Effectsnanotechfinal.pdf (accessed August 2006 ).
7. Dombrowski, P. (2003) " Ernst Haeckel's Controversial Visual Rhetoric, " Technical Communication Quarterly 12 (3). 303-19.
8. Doorman, S.J., ed. (1989) Images of Science: Scientific Practice and the Public. Aldershot: Gower.
9. Evans, J. and Hall, S., eds (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: SAGE Publications.
10. Ezzy, D. (2002) Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. London: Routledge.
11. Farnsworth, R. and Crismore, A. (1991) " On the Reefs: The Verbal and Visual Rhetoric of Darwin's Other Big Theory, " Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21 (2). 11-25.
12. Fiske, J. (1986) " Television: Polysemy and Popularity, " Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3 (4). 391-408.
13. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T.T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2005) " Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States, " Public Understanding of Science 14: 81-90.
14. GEO Yearbook (2007) " GEO Year Book 2007 Underlines Environmental Risks and Opportunities of Globalization " February. URL: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Print.asp?DocumentID= 499&ArticleID=5511&l=en (accessed February 2007).
15. Gerberding, J.L. (2006) " Protecting Health: The New Research Imperative, " Health Protection Research Initiative Grantee Meeting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 21 April.
16. Giarelli, E. (2006) " Images of Cloning and Stem Cell Research in Editorial Cartoons in the United States, " Qualitative Health Research 16 (1). 61-78.
17. Gieryn, T.F. (1983) " Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science From Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists, " American Sociological Review 48 (6). 781-95.
18. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
19. Hall, B.S. (1996) " The Didactic and the Elegant: Some Thoughts on Scientific and Technological Illustrations in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, " in B.S. Baigrie (ed.) Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science, pp. 3-39. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
20. Huxford, J. (2000) " Framing the Future: Science Fiction Frames and the Press Coverage of Cloning, " Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 14 (2). 187-99.
21. Jonsson, I. (1989) " Images of Science in Literature, " in S.J. Doorman (ed.) Images of Science: Scientific Practice and the Public, pp. 156-81. Aldershot: Gower.
22. Keller, E.F. (2002) Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
24. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) " Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology, " Science Communication 27 (2). 240-67.
25. Lefevre, W., Ren, J. and Schoepflin, U., eds (2003) The Power of Images in Early Modern Science. Berlin: Die Deutsche Bibliothek.
26. Lindlof, T. and Taylor, B. (2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
27. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M.B. and Wynne, B. (2005) " Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?, " Science Communication 27 (2). 268-91.
28. Macoubrie, J. (2005) " Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government " September. URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ news/docs/macoubriereport1.pdf (accessed August 2006).
29. Macoubrie, J. (2006) " Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government, " Public Understanding of Science 15: 221-41.
30. Miksanek, T. (2001) " Microscopic Doctors and Molecular Black Bags: Science Fiction's Prescription for Nanotechnology and Medicine, " Literature and Medicine 20 (1). 55-70.
31. Milburn, C.N. (2002) " Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science, " Configurations 10 (2). 261-95.
32. Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Mulkay, M. (1996) " Frankenstein and the Debate over Embryo Research, " Science, Technology, and Human Values 21 (2). 157-76.
34. Nanomedicine (2006) " Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology for Health." November. URL: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanomedicine- bat-en.pdf (accessed February 2007).
35. National Cancer Institute Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (2006) URL: http://nano.cancer.gov/ (accessed August 2006).
36. Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
37. Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
38. Piller, C. (2006) " Science's Tiny, Big Unknown, " Los Angeles Times 1 June, p. A1.
39. Priest, S.H. (2005) " Commentary-Room at the Bottom of Pandora's Box: Peril and Promise in Communicating Nanotechnology, " Science Communication 27 (2). 292-9.
40. Richards, A.R. (2003) " Argument and Authority in the Visual Representations of Science, " Technical Communication Quarterly 12 (2). 183-200.
41. Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) " The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies, " Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 659-67.
42. Schummer, J. (2005) " Reading Nano: The Public Interest in Nanotechnology as Reflected in Purchase Patterns of Books, " Public Understanding of Science 14: 163-83.
43. Silverstone, S. (1989) " Science and the Media: The Case of Television, " in S.J. Doorman (ed.) Images of Science: Scientific Practice and the Public, pp. 187-211. Aldershot: Gower.
44. Stephens, L.F. (2005) " News Narratives About Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers, " Science Communication 27 (2). 175-99.
45. Taylor, B.C. (2003) " 'Our Bruised Arms Hung Up as Monuments:' Nuclear Iconography in Post-Cold War Culture, " Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (1). 1-34.
46. Tobey, R.C. (1971) The American Ideology of National Science, 1919-1930. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
47. Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48. Van Riper, A.B. (2002) Science in Popular Culture: A Reference Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.