Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 80-97

  Kjærgaard, Rikke Schmidt ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73549103641     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662508093090     Document Type: Article

References (59)

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. Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 561-70.
3. Baum, R. (2003) Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley Make the Case for and against 'Molecular Assemblers,' Chemical & Engineering News 81(48): 37-42.
4. Berube, D.M. (2006) Nano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. New York: Prometheus Books.
5. Bowman, D.M., Hodge, G.A. and Binks, P. (2007) Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 27(6): 435-45.
6. Bueno, O. (2004) The Drexler-Smalley Debate on Nanotechnology: Incommensurability at Work?, Hyle: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10(2): 83-98.
7. Christen, C.T. and Gunther, A.C. (2003) The Influence of Mass Media and Other Culprits on the Projection of Personal Opinion, Communication Research 30(4): 414-31.
8. Cobb, M.D. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395-405.
9. Crichton, M. (2002) Prey. New York and London: HarperCollins.
10. Drexler, E. (1986) Engines of Creation. New York: Anchor Press.
11. Edgerton, D. (2006) The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. London: Profile Books.
12. Einhorn, E.S. and Logue, J. (2004) Can the Scandinavian Model Adapt to Globalization?, Scandinavian Studies 76(4): 501-34.
13. Eurobarometer 224 (2005) Europeans, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 224 / Wave 63.1-TNS Opinion & Social. Survey made by the European Commission, requested by Directorate General Research and coordinated by Directorate General Press and Communication.
14. Eurobarometer 225 (2005) Social Values, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 225 / Wave 63.1-TNS Opinion & Social. Survey made by the European Commission, requested by Directorate General Research and coordinated by Directorate General Press and Communication.
15. Eurobarometer 55.2 (2001) Europeans, Science and Technology. Survey made by the European Commission, requested by Directorate General Research and managed and organized by Directorate General Press and Communication.
16. Faber, B. (2006) Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986-1999, Technical Communication Quarterly 15(2): 141-69.
17. Friedman, S.M. and Egolf, B.P. (2005) Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Winter: 5-11.
18. Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C.L., eds (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach, American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.
20. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2004) Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States, Nature Materials 3(8): 496.
21. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, 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.
22. Giles, J. (2004) Nanotechnology Takes Small Steps towards Burying 'Grey Goo,' Nature 429: 591.
23. Gorss, J.B. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004, Paper presented at the 2005 conference of the International Communication Association.
24. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
25. Hall, J.S. (2005) Nanofuture: What's Next for Nanotechnology. New York: Prometheus Books.
26. Holliman, R. (2004) Media Coverage of Cloning: A Study of Media Content, Production and Reception, Public Understanding of Science 13: 107-30.
27. Joy, B. (2000a) Why the Future Doesn't Need Us, Wired March: 8.
28. Joy, B. (2000b) Derfor har fremtiden ikke brug for os (Danish translation), Information 24 June.
29. Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
30. Kulve, H.T. (2006) Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands, Science as Culture 15(4): 367-82.
31. Lean, G. (2004) Prince Warns against New 'Thalidomide' Disaster, The Independent on Sunday 11 July.
32. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies, Science Communication 27(2): 240-67.
33. Macoubrie, J. (2006) Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government, Public Understanding of Science 15: 221-41.
34. McQuail, D. (2005) Mass Communication Theory, 5th edn. London: SAGE.
35. Maher, T.M. (2001) Framing: An Emerging Paradigm or a Phase of Agenda Setting?, in S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy and A.E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life, pp. 83-94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Michaëlis, B.T. (2003) Snehvide og de syv små sværme, Politiken 18 October.
37. Miller, D. (1999) Mediating Science: Promotional Strategies, Media Coverage, Public Belief and Decision Making, in E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg and S. Yates (eds) Communicating Science, pp. 206-26. London: Routledge.
38. Miller, D., Kitzinger, J., Williams, K. and Beharrell, P. (1998) The Circuit of Mass Communication: Media Strategies, Representation and Audience Reception in the AIDS Crisis. London: SAGE.
39. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution (2000) A report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC.
40. Nelkin, D. (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
41. Nielsen, K. and Kesting, S. (2003) Small is Resilient: The Impact of Globalization on Denmark, Review of Social Economy 61(3): 365-87.
42. Nisbet, M.C. (2005) The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 90-112.
43. Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2002) Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999,Science Communication 23(4): 359-91.
44. Nisbet, M.C. and Mooney, C. (2007) Framing Science, Science 316: 56.
45. Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2002) Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology, Communication Research 29(5): 584-608.
46. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Kroepsch, A. (2003) Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8(2): 36-70.
47. Phoenix, D. and Drexler, E. (2004) Safe Exponential Manufacturing, Nanotechnology 15: 869-72.
48. Richardson, J.E. (2007) Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49. Riffe, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F.G. (2005) Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. 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.
51. Scheufele, D.A. and Tewksbury, D. (2007) Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models, Journal of Communication 57: 9-20.
52. Schmidt Kjærgaard, R. (2005) Virksomhedskommunikation og vidensdeling af nanoteknologi og stamcelleforskning [Corporate communication and knowledge sharing of stem cell research and nanotechnology], Paper presented at the Department of Science Studies, University of Aarhus, 19 December.
53. Schudson, M. (2003) The Sociology of News. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
54. Schudson, M. (2005) Four Approaches to the Sociology of News, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, 4th edn, pp. 172-97. London: Edward Arnold.
55. Stephens, L.F. (2004) News Narratives about Nano: How Journalists and the News Media Are Framing Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiatives and Issues, Paper presented at the conference Imaging and Imagining Nanoscience & Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 4-7 March.
56. 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.
57. Tankard, J.W. (2001) The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing, in S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy and A.E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life, pp. 95-106. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Technological Foresight (2004) Opportunities-Technological Foresight on Danish Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report on Denmark and the development of nanotechnology, made for the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
59. Ten Eyck, T.A. (2005) The Media and Public Opinion on Genetics and Biotechnology: Mirrors, Windows, or Walls?, Public Understanding of Science 14: 305-16.