Four models of science journalism a synthesis and practical assessment

Journalism Practice

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 62-80

  Secko, David M ^a   Amend, Elyse ^a   Friday, Terrine ^a  

^a Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

Author keywords

Models; Research synthesis; Science journalism; Writing criteria

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024059746     PISSN: 17512786     EISSN: 17512794     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2012.691351     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. ALLAN, STUART (2011) “Introduction: science journalism in a digital age”, Journalism 12(7), pp. 771-7.
2. AMEND, ELYSE and SECKO, DAVID M. (2012) “In the Face of Critique: a qualitative meta-synthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health and science”, Science Communication 32(2), pp. 241-82.
3. BARROSO, JULIE, GOLLOP, CLAUDIA J., SANDELOWSKI, MARGARETE, MEYNELL, JANET, PEARCE, PATRICIA F. and COLLINS, LINDA J. (2003) “The Challenges of Searching For and Retrieving Qualitative Studies”, Western Journal of Nursing Research 25(2), pp. 153-78.
4. BOSTIAN, LLOYD R. (1983) “How Active, Passive and Nominal Styles Affect Readability of Science Writing”, Journalism Quarterly 60(4), pp. 635-70.
5. BOYCE, T. (2007) Health, Risk and News: The MMR Vaccine and the Media, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
6. BROSSARD, DOMINQUE and LEWENSTEIN, BRUCE (2010) “A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: using practise to inform theory”, in: Lee Ann Kaholr and Patricia A. Stout (Eds), Communicating Science: new agendas in communication, New York: Routledge, pp. 11-39.
7. BUBELA, TANIA (2006) “Science Communication in Transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures”, Clinical Genetics 70, pp. 445-50.
8. BUBELA, TANIA and CAULFIELD, TIMOTHY (2004) “Do the Print Media ‘Hype’ Genetic Research?”, Canadian Medical Association Journal 170(9), pp. 1399-407.
9. BUBELA, TANIA, NISBET, MATTHEW C., BORCHELT, RICK, BRUNGER, FERN, CRITCHLEY, CRISTINE, EINSIEDEL, EDNA, GELLER, GAIL, GUPTA, ANIL, HAMPEL, JÜRGEN, HYDE LAY, ROBYN, JANDCIU, ERIC W., JONES, S. ASHLEY, KOLOPACK, PAM, LANE, SUMMER, LOUGHEED, TIM, NERLICH, BRIGITTE, OGBOGU, UBAKA, O’RIORDAN, KATHLEEN, OUELLETTE, COLIN, SPEAR, MIKE, STRAUSS, STEPHEN, THAVARATNAM, THUSHA ANTHINI, WILLEMSEN, LISA and CAULFIELD, TIMOTHY (2009) “Science Communication Reconsidered”, Nature Biotechnology 27(6), pp. 514-8.
10. BUCCI, MASSIMIANO (1996) “When Scientists Turn to the Public: alternative routes in science communication”, Public Understanding of Science 5(1996), pp. 375-94.
11. CAREY, JAMES (1989) Communication as Culture: essays on media and society, Boston: Unwin Hyman.
12. CASSELS, ALAN, HUGHES, MERRILEE A., COLE, CAROL, MINTZES, BARBARA, LEXCHIN, JOEL and MCCORMACK, JAMES P. (2003) “Drugs in the News: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs”, Canadian Medical Association Journal 168(9), pp. 1133-7.
13. CAULFIELD, TIMOTHY (2004) “Biotechnology and the Popular Press: hype and the selling of science”, Trends in Biotechnology 22(7), pp. 337-9.
14. CLARKE, BELINDA (2003) “Report: Farmers and Scientists: a case study in facilitating communication”, Science Communication 25(2), pp. 198-203.
15. D’ANDREA, LUCIANO and DECLICH, ANDREA (2005) “The Sociological Nature of Science Communication”, Journal of Science Communication 4(2). http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/04/02/A040202/ jcom0402%282005%29A02.pdf.
16. DAVIES, SARAH R. (2008) “Constructing Communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public”, Science Communication 29(4), pp. 413-34.
17. DENTZER, SUSAN (2009) “Communicating Medical News*pitfalls of health care journalism”, New England Journal of Medicine 360(1), pp. 1-3.
18. DONGHONG, CHENG, CLAESSESNS, MICHAEL, GASCOIGNE, TOSS, METCALFE, JENNI, SCHIELE, BERNARD and SHI, SHUNKE (2008) “Introduction: Science Communication-a multidisciplinary and social science”, in: Donghong Cheng, Michael Claessesns, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele and Shunke Shi (Eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: new models, new practices: New York: Springer Science, pp. 1-6.
19. FOOTE, MARYANN (2008) “Material and Methods: a recipe for success”, Chest 133(1), pp. 291-3.
20. GERHARDS, JÜRGEN and SCHA¨ FER, MIKE S. (2009) “Two Normative Models of Science in the Public Sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media”, Public Understanding of Science 18(4), pp. 437-51.
21. GLASSER, THEODORE L. and CRAFT, STEPHANIE (1997) “Public Journalism and the Prospects for Press Accountability”, in: J. Black (Ed.), Mixed News: the public/civic/communitarian journalism debate, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 120-37.
22. HAAS, TANNI (2007) The Pursuit of Public Journalism: theory, practice, and criticism, New York: Routledge.
23. HALL, STUART (1993) “Encoding, Decoding”, in: S. During (Ed.), The Cultural Studies Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 507-17.
24. HANSEN, ANDERS (1994) “Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press”, Public Understanding of Science 3(2), pp. 111-34.
25. HOLLAND, KATE E., BLOOD, R. WARWICK, THOMAS, SAMANTHA I., LEWIS, SOPHIE, KOMESAROFF, PAUL A. and CASTLE, DAVID J. (2011) “‘Our Girth Is Plain to See’: an analysis of newspaper coverage of Australia’s future ‘Fat Bomb”’, Health, Risk & Society 13(1), pp. 31-46.
26. HOLTZMAN, NEIL A., BERNHARDT, BARBARA A., MOUNTCASTLE-SHAH, ELIZA, RODGERS, JOANN E., TAMBOR, ELLEN and GELLER, GAIL (2005) “The Quality of Media Reports on Discoveries Related to Human Genetic Diseases”, Community Genetics 8(3), pp. 133-44.
27. HURD, JULIE M. (2000) “The Transformation of Scientific Communication: a model for 2020”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51(14), pp. 1279-83.
28. IRWIN, ALAN (2009) “Moving Forwards or in Circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation”, in: Richard Holliman, Elizabeth White legg, Eileen Scanlon, Sam Smidt and Jeff Thomas (Eds), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-17.
29. KAHLOR, LEEANN and ROSENTAHL, SONNY (2009) “If We Seek, Do We Learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming”, Science Communication 30(3), pp. 380-414.
30. KERR, ANNE, CUNNINGHAM-BURLEY, SARAH and TUTTON, RICHARD (2007) “Shifting Subject Positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue”, Social Studies of Science 33(7), pp. 385-411.
31. KOUPER, INNA (2010) “Science Blogs and Public Engagement with Science: practices, challenges, and opportunities”, Journal of Science Communication 9(1), pp. 1-10.
32. LEACH, JOAN, YATES, SIMEON and SCANLON, EILEEN (2009) “Models of Science Communication”, in: Richard Holliman, Elizabeth Whitelegg, Eileen Scanlon, Sam Smidt and Jeff Thomas (Eds), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: implications for public engagement and popular media, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 128-46.
33. LEVI, RAGNAR (2003) “Critical Tools for Medical Reporting”, Nieman Reports 2003, pp. 61-3.
34. LOGAN, ROBERT A. (2001) “Science Mass Communication: its conceptual history”, Science Communication 23(2), pp. 135-63.
35. LYNCH, JAKE (2002) Reporting the World, Taplow, UK: Conflict & Peace Forums
36. MENCHER, MELVIN (2003) News Reporting and Writing, 9th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. NELKIN, DOROTHY (1995) Selling Science: how the press covers science and technology, New York: W. H. Freeman.
38. NISBET, MATTHEW C. (2009) “The Ethics of Framing Science”, in: Brigitte Nerlich, Richard Elliott and Brendon Larson (Eds), Communicating Biological Sciences: ethical and metaphorical dimensions, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 51-74.
39. NISBET, MATTHEW C. and LEWENSTEIN, BRUCE V. (2002) “Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999”, Science Communication 23(4), pp. 359-91.
40. PATERSON, BARBARA L., THORNE, SALLY E., CANAM, CONNIE and JILLINGS, CAROL (2001) Meta-study of Qualitative Health Research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, London: Sage.
41. PETERS, HANS P., BROSSARD, DOMNIQUE, DE CHEVEIGNE´, SUZANNE, DUNWOODY, SHARON, KALLFASS, MONIKA, MILLER, STEVE and TSUCHIDA, SHOJI (2008) “Interactions with the Mass Media”, Science 321(5886), pp. 204-5.
42. PIOLLI, ALESSANDRO L. and CONCEIÇAÕDA COSTA, MARIA (2008) “Public Participation and Rural Management of Brazilian Waters: an alternative to the deficit model”, Journal of Science Communication 7(4), pp. 1-8.
43. RACINE, ERIC, GAREAU, ISABELLE, DOUCET, HUBERT, LAUDY, DANIELLE, JOBIN, GUY and SCHRAEDLEY-DESMOND, PAMELA (2006) “Hyped Biomedical Science or Uncritical Reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992-2001) in Quebec”, Social Science and Medicine 62(5), pp. 1278-90.
44. REED, R. (2001) “(Un-)Professional discourse?”, Journalism 2(3), pp. 279-98.
45. RENSBERGER, BOYCE (1997) “Covering Science in Newspapers”, in: Deborah Blum and Mary Knudson (Eds), A Field Guide for Science Writers: the official guide of the national association of science writers, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 7-16.
46. ROSEN, JAY (1996) Getting the Connections Right: public journalism and the troubles in the press, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.
47. ROVIRA, SERGI C. (2008) “Metaphors of DNA: a review of the popularisation process”, Journal of Science Communication 7(1), pp. 1-8.
48. RUSSELL, CRISTINE (2006) “Covering Controversial Science: improving reporting on science and public policy”, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Cambridge, MA, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/working- papers/2006-04-russell.pdf (accessed 16 August 2010).
49. SAARI, MARY-ANNE, GIBSON, CANDACE and OSLER, ANDREW (1998) “Endangered Species: science writers in the Canadian daily press”, Public Understanding of Science 7(1), pp. 61-81.
50. SANDELOWSKI, MARGARETE and BARROSO, JULIE (2003) “Toward a Metasynthesis of Qualitative Findings on Motherhood in HIV-positive Women”, Research in Nursing and Health 26(2), pp. 153-70.
51. SCHÄ FER, MIKE S. (2011) “Sources, Characteristics and Effects of Mass Media Communication on Science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research”, Sociology Compass 5(6), pp. 399-412.
52. SCHWEIZER, SARAH, THOMPSON, JESSICA L., TEEL, TARA and BRUYERE, BRETT (2009) “Strategies for Communicating About Climate Change Impacts on Public Lands”, Science Communication 31(2), pp. 266-74.
53. SECKO, DAVID M. (2007) “Learning to Swim with Salmon: pilot evaluation of journalism as a method to create information for public engagement”, Health Law Review 15(3), pp. 32-5.
54. SECKO, DAVID M. (2009) “The Unfinished Science Story: reflections on journalist-audience interactions in the online environment”, Journal of Media Practice 10(2/3), pp. 259-66.
55. STOCKLMAYER, SUSAN and GILBERT, JOHN K. (2002) “New Experiences and Old Knowledge: towards a model for the personal awareness of science and technology”, International Journal of Science Education 24(8), pp. 835-58.
56. STURGIS, PATRICK and ALLUM, NICK (2004) “Science in Society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes”, Public Understanding of Science 13(1), pp. 55-74.
57. THORNE, SALLY (2008) Interpretive Description, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
58. TLILI, ANWAR and DAWSON, EMILY (2010) “Mediating Science and Society in the EU and UK: from information-transmission to deliberative democracy?”, Minerva 48(4), pp. 429-61.
59. TREISE, DEBBIE and WEIGOLD, MICHAEL F. (2002) “Advancing Science Communication”, Science Communication 23(3), pp. 310-22.
60. VASTERMAN, PETER, SCHOLTEN, OTTO and RUIGROK, NEL (2008) “A Model for Evaluating Risk Reporting”, European Journal of Communication 23(3), pp. 319-41.
61. VERCELLESI, LUISA, MIGHETTI, PAOLA, DI CROCE, MARIANNA, BAZZI, ADRIANA, PIERONI, BRUNO, CENTEMERI, CARLO and BRUNO, FLAVIA (2010) “Recommendations for Health Reporting: proposal of a working paper”, Health Education Journal 69(1), pp. 48-62.
62. WEIGOLD, MICHAEL F. (2001) “Communicating Science”, Science Communication 23(2), pp. 164-93.
63. ZIA, ASIM and TODD, ANNE MARIE (2010) “Evaluating the Effect of Ideology on Public Understanding of Climate Change Science: how to improve communication across ideological divides?”, Public Understanding of Science 19(6), pp. 743-61.