This paper aims to analyze the way in which the Greek press treats the socio-epistemic constitution of science and technology. By “socio-epistemic constitution” we mean the following dimensions: (a) techno-scientific methodology, (b) the social organization of the techno-scientific endeavor, and (c) the interactions of science and technology with other public spheres. Our methodology is based on a content analysis of a sample consisting of 1,867 relevant articles from four national Greek newspapers. The analysis showed that although there is a constant flow of techno-scientific articles, the internal aspects (methodology and internal organization) of science and technology become apparent in only a small minority of these articles. By contrast, external relationships, mainly with politics and economics, are emphasized by focusing on the positive social impact of the techno-scientific endeavor. In general, the Greek press makes a positive contribution to the advancement of the public understanding of science and technology, as the prominent presentation of some of their socio-epistemological components forms a realistic “post-academic” image of these two areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust , “Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes towards science in Britain,”Public Understanding of Science10, no. 3 (2001): 315-330.
2.
Todd Gitlin , The Whole World is Watching (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1980), 7.
3.
Leah A. Lievrouw , “Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge,”Critical Studies in Mass Communication7, no. 1 (1990): 1-10.
4.
Allan Mazur , “Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies,”Journal of Communication31, no. 1 (1981): 106-115.
5.
Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
6.
Steven Shapin , “Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making,”Public Understanding of Science1, no. 1 (1992): 27-30.
7.
Jon D. Miller , Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).
8.
Jon D. Miller , “The measurement of civic scientific literacy.”
9.
Jon D. Miller , Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996.
10.
Martin Bauer and Ingrid Schoon, “Mapping variety in public understanding of science,”Public Understanding of Science2, no. 2 (1993): 141-155.
11.
Steven Yearley , “Understanding science from the prospective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: an overview,”Public Understanding of Science3, no. 3 (1994): 245-258, at 245.
12.
Michel Callon , “Some elements of a sociology of translation,” in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law (London: Routledge. 1986), 196-233.
13.
Karl R. Popper , Objective Knowledge.
14.
Thomas S. Kuhn , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 176.
15.
Robert K. Merton , The Sociology of Science.
16.
Harry M. Collins , Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
17.
Michel Callon , “Some elements of a sociology of translation.”
18.
Eleftheros Typos, Eleftherotypia, and Kathimerini are dailies with a Sunday edition, whereas Vima is a Sunday newspaper, with no daily editions.
19.
According to data supplied by the Association of the Greek Newspaper Owners, the mean number of issues sold over the period covered by this study (1996-1998) for each newspaper in our sample were: Vima (160,000 issues), Eleftheros Typos (120,000 issues), Eleftherotypia (90,000 issues), and Kathimerini (70,000 issues). These circulations account for the 35 percent of the total readership of the dailies and the 65 percent of the total readership for Sunday newspapers in Greece over the period of the study. Eleftheros Typos and Kathimerini are considered conservative, while Vima and Eleftherotypia are considered liberal newspapers.
20.
For instance, such events were: the cloning of Dolly at the Roslin Institute in April 1997, the intergovernmental congress in Kyoto about the control of greenhouse gas emissions in December 1997, the Pathfinder expedition to Mars in August 1997, the outbreak of mad cow disease in March 1996, and the legal battle between Microsoft and the U.S. administration during the whole of 1998.
21.
Guildo H. Stempel , “Sample size for classifying subject matter in dailies,”Journalism Quarterly29, no. 3 (1952): 333-334.
22.
The exclusion from our sample of articles about medicine and the social sciences was based the fact that in all of the Greek newspapers medical news items appear in a special section other than that of science and technology, while the articles about social sciences are never found in the science and technology section. In this way, the Greek press seems to “frame” both medicine and social sciences as areas distinguishable from the rest of the techno-scientific disciplines.
23.
Edna F. Einsiedel , “Framing science and technology in the Canadian press,”Public Understanding of Science1, no. 1 (1992): 89-101.
24.
The Budd score is calculated by adding one point for each column covered by the article's headline, each visual representation accompanying the article, plus one point if the article is located at the upper half of the page and if the article is located in any prominent page of the newspaper (front page, back page, middle page) and/or if it occupies a whole page. The idea for using this variable was borrowed from the study of Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
25.
The formulation of this variable was inspired by the answers of the American public on the issue of scientific methodology; see Jon D. Miller, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation: Science and Technology Indicators 2000.
26.
A similar variable has been used in: Robert A. Logan, Peng Zengjun, and Nancy Fraser Wilson, “Evaluating Assertions About Science Writing, Reporting and News Selection: A Content Analysis of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times,” Paper presented in the 5th PCST Conference, Science without Frontiers, Berlin: September 1998.
27.
Similar variables have been used in Martin Bauer, John Durant, Asdis Ragnarsodottir, and Annadis Rudolphsdottir, Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990.
28.
Marianne G. Pellenchia , “Trends in science coverage”; Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne, “Science journalism in Australia,”Public Understanding of Science4, no. 4 (1995): 411-428.
29.
INRA (Europe) Europeans, Science and Technology: Public Understanding and Attitudes.
30.
Neil Hutton , “Interactions between the formal UK school science curriculum and the public understanding of science,”Public Understanding of Science5, no. 1 (1996): 41-53.
31.
Bharvi Dutt and K. C., Garg, “An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies.”
32.
Anders Hansen , “Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press,”Public Understanding of Science3, no. 1 (1994): 111-134.
33.
William A. Evanset al. , “Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses,” p. 116.
Anders Hansen , “Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press.”
36.
Friedhelm Neidhardt , “The public as a communication system,”Public Understanding of Science2, no. 4 (1993): 339-350.
37.
Kristina Petkova , Martin Bauer, Pepka Boyadjieva, and Galin Gornev, “Modernization and images of science: comparing Britain and Bulgaria 1946-1994,” Paper presented in 4S/EASST conference Worlds in Transition: Techno-science, Citizenship and Culture in the 21st Century, Vienna: September 27-30, 2000.
38.
Martin Bauer , “Science in the media as cultural indicator: contextualizing surveys with media analysis,” in Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, eds. Meinolf Dierkes and Claudia von Grote (Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000).
39.
Jon Miller , Rafael Pardo, and Fujio Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada (Madrid: Foundation BBV, 1997).
40.
Dorothy Nelkin , Selling Science: How Press Covers Science and Technology.
41.
The notion of “backstage” is used here as a place “where the impression fostered by a given performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course”; see Erving Goffman; The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959).
42.
Michael Gibbons , Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, S. Schwartzmann, Pam Scott, and M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1994).
43.
Jon D. Miller , “Scientific Literacy: A conceptual and empirical review.” The examination of the Greek press's contribution to the public understanding of this dimension is out of the scope of this paper.
44.
Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (London: Verso, 1999).
45.
Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesmer, “Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects, amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology,”Social Studies of Science19 (1989): 387-420.
