So where's the theory? on the relationship between science communication practice and research

Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 275-287

  Miller, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Communicating risk; science communication; training

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891438202     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_16     Document Type: Chapter

References (24)

1. Bauer, M., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
2. Beck, U. (1985) (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
3. Durant, J. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe. London: Science Museum.
4. EC (European Commission) (2001). Science and society action plan. Brussels: European Commission.
5. EC (European Commission) (2002). Report of the expert group benchmarking the promotion of RTD culture and the public understanding of science. Brussels: European Commission.
6. EC (European Commission) (2005). Eurobarometer 224. Europeans, science and society. Brussels: European Commission.
7. Frewer, L., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M. & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 363-372.
8. Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. London: Plenum.
9. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-539.
10. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S. & Griffin, R. (2002). Attributions in explanations of risk estimates. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 243-257.
11. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Magill, S. & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Leeds: Leeds Media Services.
12. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K. & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435-457.
13. Major, A. & Atwood, L. (2004). Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems and values. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 295-308.
14. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
15. Miller, S. (2003). Science communication's burnt bridges. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 167-182.
16. Miller, S. (2007). The fourth deficit? Science and Public Affairs, September, 15.
17. O'Neill, K. (2003). A vital fluid: Risk, controversy and the politics of blood donation in the era of 'mad cow disease'. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 359-380.
18. Payne, R. (1992). Chernobyl reaches Norway: The accident, science and the threat to cultural knowledge. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 261-70.
19. Rayner, S. (2007). The fourth deficit?-Reply. Science and Public Affairs, September, 16.
20. SCST (Select Committee on Science and Technology) (2000). Science and society. Third report. London: House of Lords.
21. Stocklmayer, S., Gore, M. & Bryant, C. (Eds.) (2001). Science communication in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Academic.
22. UK Government (2003). GM Nation? Report. Retrieved from http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/gmnation-finalreport.pdf
23. Weingart, P., Engels, A. & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: Discourse on climate change in science, politics and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261-283.
24. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and the public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 281-304.