The ‘communicative turn’ in contemporary techno-science: Latin American approaches and global tendencies

Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 3-17

  Polino, Carmelo ^a   Castelfranchi, Yurij ^b  

^a Centro REDES   (Argentina)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Contemporary techno science; Latin America; Models and practices in public communication of S and T; Science communication theo; Sociology of S and T

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928988579     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_1     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Bauer, M. (2008). Survey research on public understanding of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London/New York: Routledge.
2. Bauer, M., & Bucchi, M. (Eds.). (2007). Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. New York: Routledge.
3. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. London: Polity Press/Blackwell.
4. Bell, D. (1994). El advenimiento de la sociedadpost-industrial. Madrid: Alianza.
5. Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academia staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 48-63.
6. Bourdieu, P. (2007). Sobre la television. Barcelona: Anagrama.
7. Brossard, D. (2009). Media, scientificjournals and science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 258-274.
8. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.
9. Bucchi, M. (2000). A public explosion: Big-bang theory in the UK daily press. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. London: Routledge.
10. Bucchi, M. (2002). Science in society: An introduction to the social studies ofscience. London/New York: Routledge.
11. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London/New York: Routledge.
12. Bucchi, M. (2009). Beyond technocracy: Science, politics and citizens. London/New York: Springer.
13. Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. (2003). Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 7-24.
14. Castelfranchi, Y. (2002). Scientists to the streets: Science, politics and the public moving towards new osmoses. JCOM—Journal of Science Communication, 1(2), 1-14.
15. Castelfranchi, Y. (2008). As serpentes e o bastao. Tecnociencia, neoliberalismo e inexorabilidade, Ph.D. thesis, Campinas State University (UNICAMP).
16. Castelfranchi, Y., & Pitrelli, N. (2007). Come si comunica la scienza? Roma-Bari: Laterza.
17. Castells, M. (1997). La era de la informacion: Economla, sociedad y cultura. Madrid: Alianza.
18. Cesarino, L. N. (2007). Nas fronteiras do ‘humano’: Os debates britanico e brasileiro sobre a pesquisa com embrioes. Mana, 13(2), 347-380.
19. Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (Eds.). (2008). Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. New York: Springer.
20. Clemens, E. (1986). Of asteroids and dinosaurs: The role of the press in the shaping of scientific debate. Social Studies of Science, 16(3), 421-456.
21. Cloitre, M., & Shinn, T. (1985). Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemological linkage. In T. Shinn & R. Withley (Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularization (Sociology of sciences yearbook, Vol. 4). Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel.
22. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Da Silva Medeiros, F., & Massarani, L. (2010). Pandemic on the air: A case study on the coverage of new influenza A/H1N1 by Brazilian prime time TV news. Jcom, 9(3), 1-9.
24. Dierkes, M., & von Grote, C. (2000). Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. London: Routledge.
25. Echeverna, J. (2003). La revolucion tecnocientfica. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
26. Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408-437.
27. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28. Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. Science, Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 20(2), 18-29.
29. Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post normal age. Futures, 25, 739-755.
31. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Giddens, A., Beck, U., & Lash, S. (1997). Modernizacion reflexiva. Polltica, tradicion y estetica en el orden social moderno. Madrid: Alianza.
33. HaUin, D. (2008). Neoliberalism, social movements and change in media systems in the late twentieth century. In D. Hesmondhalgh & J. Toynbee (Eds.), The media and social theory. London/New York: Routledge.
34. Heckenberger, M. J., et al. (2003). Amazonia 1492: Pristine forest or cultural parkland? Science, 301(5640), 1710-1714.
35. Jacobi, D., & Schiele, B. (Eds.). (1988). Vulgariser la science: Leproces de l’ignorance. Seyssel: Champ Vallon.
36. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society, 17(3), 279-293.
37. Jensen, P. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 26-36.
38. Kiernan, V. (1997). Ingelfinger, embargoes, and other controls on the dissemination of science news. Science Communication, 18(4), 297-319.
39. Kiernan, V. (2000). The Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 15-41.
40. Kiernan, V. (2003). Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication, 25(1), 3-13.
41. Kreimer, P., Levin, L., & Jensen, P. (2011). Popularizations by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 37-47.
42. Kunth, D. (1992). La place du chercheur dans la vulgarisation scientifique. Rapport CNRS. Retrieved from http://sciences-medias.ens-lsh.fr/scs/article.php3?id_article=276.
43. Latour, B. (1992). Ciencia en accion. Barcelona: Labor.
44. Leite, M. (2007). Arautos da razao: A paralisia no debate sobre transgenicos e meio ambiente. Novos estud.—CEBRAP, 78, 41-47.
45. Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 186-200.
46. Lewenstein, B. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25, 403-436.
47. Lopez Cerezo, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). La democratizacion de la ciencia. San Sebastian: Erein.
48. Massarani, L., & Polino, C. (organisers) (2008). Los desaflos del periodismo cientfico en Iberoamerica. Jornadas IberoAmericanas sobre la ciencia en los medios masivos. Rfo de Janeiro, RICYT, Scidev.net, CYTED, AECI, OEA.
49. Massarani, L., Buys, B., Amorim, L. H., & Veneu, F. (2007). Growing, but foreign source dependent: Science coverage in Latin America. In M. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. New York/London: Routledge.
50. Nieman, A. (2000). Thepopularization ofphysics: Boundaries ofauthority and the visual culture of science. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Applied Sciences and Faculty of Humanities, University of the West of England, Bristol.
51. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
52. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008a). Interactions with the mass media. Science, AAAS, 321, 204-205.
53. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008b). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30, 266-276.
54. Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2006). Social movements and the state: Political power dynamics in Latin America. Critical Sociology, 32, 83-104.
55. Phillips, D. P., Kanter, E. J., Bednarczyk, B., & Tastad, P. L. (1991). Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.
56. Polino, C. (2009). La ciencia en las noticias de America Latina: Una aproximacion empnica para el caso de la salud. In J. A. Lopez Cerezo & J. Gomez (Eds.), Apropiacion social de la ciencia. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
57. Polino, C., & Castelfranchi, Y. (in press). Comunicacion publica de la ciencia: Historia, practicas y modelos. In E. Aibar, & M. A. Quintanilla (Eds.), Ciencia, Tecnologla y Sociedad. Enciclopedia IberoAmericana de Filosofia. Madrid: Trotta.
58. Polino, C., Fazio, M. E. & Chiappe, D. (2006). Analisis de la oferta informativa sobre ciencia y tecnolog^a en los principales diarios argentinos. Observatorio de Ciencia, Tecnolog^a e Innovation Productiva, SECYT. www.observatorio.secyt.gov.ar.
59. Ramalho, M., Polino, C., Cevallos, M. C., Cruz, P., Intriago, M., Teran, A., Chiappe, D., Neffa, G. & Massarani, L. (2011). La ciencia en los telediarios de Brasil y Ecuador. XII Reunion Bienal RedPop, Campinas.
60. Royal Society (2006). Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers. Royal Society. www.royalsociety.org.
61. Schiele, B. (2006). Communicating science in the real context of society. In C. Donghong, J. Metcalfe, & B. Schiele (Eds.), At the human scale: International practices in science communication. Beijing: Science Press.
62. Schiele, B. (2009). Journalisme scientifique: Le role des journalistes comme mediateurs doit etre repense. In A. Char & R. Cote (Eds.), La revolution internet. Quebec: Presses de l’Universite du Quebec.
63. Svampa, M., & Antonelli, M. (2009). Minerla transnacional, narrativas del desarrollo y resistencias sociales. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
64. Takahashi, B. (2010). Framing and sources: A study of mass media coverage of climate change in Peru during the V ALCUE. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 1-15.
65. Torres Albero, A., Fernandez Esquinas, M., Rey Rocha, J., & Martm Sempere, M. (2011). Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 12-25.
66. Vara, A. M. (2007a). Periodismo cientffico: ^Preparado para enfrentar los conflictos de interes? Revista CTS, 9(3), 189-209.
67. Vara, A. M. (2007b). S^ a la vida, no a las papeleras: En torno a una controversia ambiental inedita en America Latina. Redes, 12(025), 15-49.
68. Veron, E. (1999). Entre la epistemologla y la comunicacion. CIC, no. 4, Servicio de Publicaciones UCM, 149-155.
69. Weinberg, A. (1972). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10, 209-222.
70. Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhaltnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Germany: Velbruck.
71. Wynne, B. (1989). Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment Magazine, 31(2), 10-39.
72. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.