Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio

Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 58-69

  Borchelt, Rick E ^a   Nielsen, Kristian H ^b  

^a US Department of Energy Office of Science   (United States)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922222105     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203483794     Document Type: Chapter

References (53)

1. Ankney, R. N. and Curtin, P. A. (2002) ‘Delineating (and delimiting) the boundary spanning role of the medical public information officer’, Public Relations Review, 28, 3: 229—241.
2. Bauer, M. W and Bucchi, M. (eds) (2007) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, New York and London: Routledge.
3. Bauer, M. W, N. Allum and S. Miller (2007) ‘What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda’, Public Understanding of Science, 16, 1: 79—95.
4. Bauer, M. W, Shukla, R. and Allum, N. (eds) (2012) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe, New York and London: Routledge.
5. Beck, U. (2009) World at Risk, Cambridge: Polity.
6. Bernal, J. D. (1944) The Social Function of Science, London: George Routledge.
7. Besley, J. C. and Nisbet, M. (2013) ‘How scientists view the public, the media and the political process’, Public Understanding of Science, 22, 6: 644—659.
8. Borchelt, R. (2008) ‘Public relations in science: managing the trust portfolio’, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, London and New York: Routledge, 147-157.
9. Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2008) ‘Science and public participation’, in E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 449-472.
10. Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gasgoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B. and Shi, S. (eds) (2008) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, Dordrecht: Springer.
11. China Research Institute for Science Popularization (CRISP) (2008) Chinese Public Understanding of Science and Attitudes Towards Science and Technology, Beijing: CRISP
12. Duke, S. (2002) ‘Wired science: use of World Wide Web and e-mail in science public relations’, Public Relations Review, 28, 3: 311—324.
13. Dumlao, R. and Duke, S. (2003) The Web and E-Mail in Science Communication, Science Communication, 24, 3: 283-308.
14. European Commission (2010) Science and Technology: Special Eurobarometer 340, European Commission Directorate-General for Research. Online at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf (accessed 3 July 2013).
15. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L. (eds) (1986) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, New York: Free Press.
16. Fyfe, A. (2004) Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
17. Fyfe, A. and Lightman, B. V (eds) (2007) Science in the Marketplace: Nineteenth-Century Sites and Experiences, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
18. Gopfert, W (2007) ‘The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism’, in M. W Bauer and M. Bucchi (eds) Journalism, Science and Society, New York and London: Routledge, 215-226.
19. Grunig, J. E. and Hunt, T. (1984) Managing Public Relations, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20. Hamilton, J. D. (2003) ‘Exploring technical and cultural appeals in strategic risk communication: the Fernald radium case’, Risk Analysis, 23, 2: 291-302.
21. Irwin, A. (2006) ‘The politics of talk: coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance’, Social Studies of Science, 36, 2: 299-320.
22. Kallfass, M. (2009) Public Relations von Wissenschaftseinrichtungen — explorative Studie in Deutschland, Frankreich and Gropbritannien, Medienorientierung biomedizinischer Forscher im internationalen Vergleich. Die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft & Journalismus und ihre politische Relevanz, Julich: Forschungszentrum Julich, 101—175. Available online http://wwwzb1.fz-juelich.de/contentenrichment/onlinepublikationen/Gesundheit_18.pdf (accessed 4 July 2013).
23. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (KOFAC) (2009) Survey of Public Attitudes Towards and Understanding of Science and Technology 2008, Seoul: KOFAC.
24. Krieghbaum, H. (1941) ‘American newspaper reporting of science news’, Kansas State College Bulletin, XXV, 5: 1—73.
25. LaFollette, M. C. (1990) Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910—1955, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Lamberts, R., Grant, W J. and Martin, A. (2010) ANU Poll: Public Opinion about Science, The Australia National University. Available online: http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//ANUpoll%20on%20science1.pdf (accessed 4 July 2013).
27. Lederbogen, U. and Trebbe, J. (2003) Promoting science on the Web: public relations for scientific organizations — results of a content analysis, Science Communication, 24, 3: 333—352.
28. McComas, K. (2004) ‘When even the “best-laid” plans go wrong — Strategic risk communication for new and emerging risks’, EMBO Reports, 5, Supplement 1: S61—S65.
29. Merton, R. K. ([1938] 2002) Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England, New York: Howard Fertig.
30. Metcalfe, J. and Gascoigne, T. (2012) ‘The evolution of science communication research in Australia’, in B. Schiele, M. Claessens and S. Shi (eds) Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, Dordrecht: Springer, 19—32.
31. Miller, J. D. (1987) ‘Scientific literacy in the United States’, in D. Evered and M. O’Connor (eds) Communicating Science to the Public, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore: Wiley, 19—40.
32. Montgomery, S. L. (2009) ‘Science and the online world: realities and issues for discussion’, in R. Holliman, J. Thomas, S. Smidt, E. Scanlon and E. Whitelegg (eds) Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83—97.
33. Moore, A. (2000) ‘Would you buy a tomato from this man? How to overcome public mistrust in scientific advances’, EMBO Reports, 1, 3: 210—212.
34. Muller, C. (ed.) (2004) SciencePop: Wissenschaftsjournalismus zwischen PR und Forschungskritik, Graz: Nausner und Nausner.
35. Nakamura, M. (2010) ‘STS in Japan in light of the science cafe movement’, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 4, 1:145—151.
36. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) (2002) The 2001 Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology in Japan, NISTEP. Available online http://data.nistep. go.jp/dspace/bitstream/11035/612/2/NISTEP-NR072-SummaryE.pdf (accessed 4 July 2013).
37. National Science Board (2013) Science and Engineering Indicators, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available online http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/(accessed 3 July 2013).
38. Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, revised edition, New York: W. H. Freeman.
39. Nielsen, K. H. (2008) ‘Enacting the social relations of science: historical (anti-)boundary-work of Danish science journalist Borge Michelsen’, Public Understanding of Science, 17, 2: 171-188.
40. Palenchar, M. J. and Heath, R. L. (2007) ‘Strategic risk communication: adding value to society’, Public Relations Review, 33, 2: 120-129.
41. People’s Republic of China (2002) Law of the People’s Republic of China on Popularization of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. Available online www.most.gov.cn/eng/policies/regulations/200501/t20050112_18584.htm (accessed 3 July 2013).
42. Polino, C. and Castelfranchi, Y. (2012) ‘The “communicative turn” in contemporary techno-science: Latin American approaches and global tendencies’, in B. Schiele, M. Claessens and S. Shi (eds) Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, Dordrecht: Springer, 3-17.
43. Ren F., Yin L. and Li, H. (2012) ‘Science popularization studies in China’, in B. Schiele, M. Claessens and S. Shi (eds) Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, Dordrecht: Springer, 65-79.
44. Rhees, D. J. (1979) A New Voice for Science: Science Service under Edwin J. Slosson 1921-29, Masters Thesis, University of North Carolina. Available online: http://scienceservice.si.edu/thesis/(accessed 3 July 2013).
45. Schafer, M. (2012) ‘Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews — Climate Change, 3, 6: 527-543.
46. Schiele, B., Claessens, M. and Shi, S. (eds) (2012) Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, Dordrecht: Springer.
47. Secord, J. A. (2000) Victorian Sensation:The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Shapin, S. (1990) ‘Science and the public’, in R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie and M. J. S. Hodge (eds) Companion to the History of Modern Science, London and New York: Routledge, 990-1007.
49. Shukla, R. (2005) India Science Report: Science Education, Human Resources and Public Attitude towards Science and Technology, New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research. Available online: www. eaber.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCAER_Shukla_2005.pdf (accessed 4 July 2013).
50. Springston, J. K. and Lariscy, R. A. W. (2003) ‘Health as profit: public relations in health communication’, in T. L. Thompson, A. Dorsey, K. I. Miller and R. Parrot (eds) Handbook of Health Communication, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 537-556.
51. Survey Research Center, Universty of Michigan, and National Association of Science Writers (1958) The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media: A Report on a Nation-Wide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
52. Trench, B. (2007) ‘How the Internet changed science journalism’, in M. W. Bauer and M. Bucchi (eds) Journalism, Science and Society, New York and London: Routledge, 132-141.
53. Trumbo, C., Sprecker, K., Dumlao, R., Yun, G. and Duke, S. (2001) ‘Use of e-mail and the Web by science writers’, Science Communication, 22, 4: 347-378.