Framing emerging technologies: Risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press

Science Communication

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 5-29

  Donk, André ^a   Metag, Julia ^a   Kohring, Matthias ^b   Marcinkowski, Frank ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

content analysis; framing; Germany; nanotechnology; science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856801806     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547011417892     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson A.,Allan S.,Petersen A.,Wilkinson C.The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press.Science Communication. 2005;27:200-220.
2. Anderson A.,Petersen A.,Wilkinson C.,Allan S.Nanotechnology, risk, and communication. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009:.
3. Bainbridge W.S.Public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2002;4:561-570.
4. Benford R.D.,Snow D.A.Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.Annual Review of Sociology. 2000;26:611-639.
5. BontouxT.WarwickT. (2010). UK strategy for nanotechnology. Retrieved from https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=70035&folderId=100091&name=DLFE-3360.pdf.
6. Bundesregierung. (2010). Förderschwerpunkt Nanotechnologie [Federal "Research and Innovation" Funding: Nanotechnology]. Retrieved from http://www.foerderinfo.bund.de/de/839.php.
7. Burri R.V.Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:498-511.
8. Crawley C.E.Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources.Science Communication. 2007;28:314-346.
9. Dalrymple, K. E., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2009, May). Proximity to experts? Rethinking operationalizations of cognitive outcomes based on dual-source measures. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
10. De Vreese C.H.The spiral of cynicism reconsidered: The mobilizing function of news.European Journal of Communication. 2005;20:283-301.
11. Entman R.M.Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.Journal of Communication. 1993;43:51-58.
12. Fitzgerald, S. T., & Rubin, B. (2007, August). Constructing risk: Media coverage of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.
13. Friedman S.M.,Egolf B.P.Nanotechnology: Risks and the media.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2005;24:5-11.
14. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R.G. Braungart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15. Gaskell G.,Eyck T.T.,Jackson J.,Veltri G.Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States.Science Communication. 2005;27:81-90.
16. Gorss, J. B., Lewenstein, B. V., & Radin, J. (2005, May). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press. Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
17. Grobe, A., Eberhard, C., & Hutterli, M. (2005). Nanotechnologie im spiegel der medien: Medienanalyse zur berichterstattung über chancen und risiken der nanotechnologie [Nanotechnology in the media: Media analysis of the coverage of benefits and risks of nanotechnology]. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Stiftung Risikodialog.
18. Hampel, J., Pfenning, U., Kohring, M., Görke, A., & Ruhrmann, G. (2001). Biotechnology boom and market failure: Two sides of the German coin. In G. Gaskell, & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 191-203). London, England: Science Museum.
19. Hampel. J., Ruhrmann, G., Kohring, M., & Görke, A. (1998). Germany. In J. Durant, M. W. Bauer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook (pp. 63-76). London, England: Science Museum.
20. Ho S.S.,Scheufele D.A.,Corley E.C.Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2010;12:2703-2715.
21. Iyengar S.Framing responsibilities for political issues.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1996;546:59-70.
22. KanervaM. (2009). Assessing risk discourses: Nano S&T in the global south (UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series No. 063). Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/dgr/unumer/2009063.html.
23. Kaufman L.,Rousseeuw P.J.Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2005:.
24. Kjolberg K.L.Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: Implications for public participation.Nanoethics. 2009;3:61-72.
25. Kohring M.,Matthes J.Public Understanding of Science. s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology; 2002:143-154.
26. Kulinowski K.Nanotechnology: From "Wow" to "Yuck"?.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2004;24:13-20.
27. LaingA. (2006). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Retrieved from http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/A%20report%20on%20Canadian%20and%20American%20news%20media%20coverage%20of%20nanotechnology%20issues.pdf.
28. Lee C.,Scheufele D.A.,Lewenstein B.V.Public attitudes toward emerging technologies.Science Communication. 2005;27:240-267.
29. Lewenstein, B. V. (1998). Advocacy versus objectivity in environmental journalism: a historical perspective. In W. Göpfert, & R. Bader (Eds.), Risikoberichterstattung und Wissenschaftsjournalismus [Risk communication and science reporting]. Tagungsbericht zum 4. Colloquium Wissenschaftsjournalismus [Conference Proceedings of the 4th Science Journalism Colloquium] (pp. 179-190). Stuttgart: Schattauer.
30. Lewenstein B.V.Introduction: Nanotechnology and the public.Science Communication. 2005;27:169-174.
31. Macoubrie J.Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government.Public Understanding of Science. 2006;15:221-241.
32. Maeseele P.A.,Schuurman D.Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretative struggle.Science Communication. 2008;29:435-471.
33. Marcinkowski F.,Kohring M.,Friedemann A.,Donk A.Risikowahrnehmung beim thema nanotechnologie: Analyse der medienberichterstattung für den analysezeitraum 01/2006-06/2007. Berlin, Germany: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung; 2008:.
34. Matthes J.,Kohring M.The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity.Journal of Communication. 2008;58:258-279.
35. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2010). Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Retrieved from http://eprints.internano.org/79/1/NNI_08Budget.pdf.
36. Pense C.M.,Cutcliffe S.H.Risky talk: Framing the analysis of social implications of nanotechnology.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2007;27:349-366.
37. Petersen A.,Anderson A.,Allan S.,Wilkinson C.Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:512-530.
38. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett, & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progresses in the communication sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). New York, NY: Ablex.
39. Scheufele B.Frames, schemata, and news reporting.Communications. 2006;31:65-83.
40. Scheufele D.A.Framing as a theory of media effects.Journal of Communication. 1999;49:103-122.
41. Scheufele D.A.,Lewenstein B.V.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:659-667.
42. Schmidt Kjærgaard R.Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19:80-97.
43. Schütz H.,Wiedemann P.M.Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:369-379.
44. Semetko H.A.,Valkenburg P.M.Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news.Journal of Communication. 2000;50:93-109.
45. Shah D.,Watts M.D.,Domke D.,Fan D.News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2002;66:339-370.
46. SiegristM. (2006). Public knowledge and public perception of nanotechnology. In MeiliC.HusmannF. (Eds.), Safety, risk and regulation of engineered nanoparticles: Results, trends and perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.pccl.at/objects/application_pdf/NanoRisikoStGallen2006.pdf.
47. Snow D.A.,Benford R.D.Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization.International Social Movement Research. 1988;1:197-217.
48. Stephens L.F.News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers.Science Communication. 2005;27:175-199.
49. Tabachnick B.G.,Fidell L.S.Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007:.
50. Te Kulve H.Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands.Science as Culture. 2006;15:367-382.
51. Vandermoere F.,Blanchemanche S.,Bieberstein A.,Marette S.,Roosen J.The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:1-12.
52. Vierboom, C., Härlen, I., & Simons, J. (2008). Wahrnehmung der nanotechnologie in der bevölkerung. Repräsentativerhebung und morphologisch-psychologische grundlagenstudie [Citizens' perception of nanotechnology. Representative survey and morphological-psychological study]. Berlin, Germany: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.
53. Waldron A.M.,Spencer D.,Batt C.A.The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2006;8:569-575.
54. Weaver D.A.,Lively E.,Bimber B.Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk and regulation.Science Communication. 2009;31:139-166.