The articles in this special issue highlight the ways in which science communication, and in particular translational communication, implicates the nuances of language. This issue is the report of the Task Force on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) language set up by the International Association of Language and Social Psychology. The articles raise issues about the multiple stakeholders in science and their characteristic language and concepts, in contexts as diverse as health, energy production, forensic science, and science education. They point to the consequences of getting communication wrong, and to the important role of linguistics and language and social psychology in understanding this process. The articles point to a research agenda for language and social psychology researchers in this increasingly important and salient area, as we address major problems in society through the sciences.
AllenM. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404.
2.
AspreyM. (2010). Plain language for lawyers (4th ed.). Leichhardt, New South Wales, Australia: Federation Press.
3.
BlumeS. (2006). Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 628-642.
4.
BrooksC. F. (2017). Student Identity and Aversions to Science: A Study of Translation in Higher Education. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 112-126.
de VriesG. (2017). How Positive Framing May Fuel Opposition to Low-Carbon Technologies: The Boomerang Model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 28-44.
7.
de WitM.AbmaT.Koelewijn-can LoonM.CollinsS.KirwanJ. (2013). Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: A responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. British Medical Journal Open, 3, e002241. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002241
8.
GalloisC.AshworthP.LeachJ.MoffatK. (2017). The Language of Science and Social Licence to Operate. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 45-60.
9.
GilesH. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
GilesH.MaassA. (Eds.). (2016). Advances in intergroup communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
Gooberman-HillR.HorwoodJ.CalnanM. (2008). Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: Process, engagement and outcome. Health Expectations, 11, 272-281.
12.
HandE. (2010). Citizen science: People power. Nature, 466, 685-687.
13.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S.McStayR.ReserJ. P.BradleyG. L. (2016). Are people high in skepticism about anthropogenic climate change necessarily resistant to influence? Some cause for optimism. Environment & Behavior, 48, 905-928. doi:10.1177/0013916515574085
14.
HowesL. M.KempN. (2017) Discord in the Communication of Forensic Science: Can the Science of Language Help Foster Shared Understanding?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 96-111.
KriegerJ. (2014). Last resort or roll of the die? Exploring the role of metaphors in cancer clinical trials education among medically underserved populations. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 1161-1177.
17.
LewandowskyS.CookJ.OberauerdK.BrophyeS.LloydE. AMarriottM. (2015). Recurrent fury: Conspiratorial discourse in the blogosphere triggered by research on the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 142-178.
18.
NeilJ. M.KriegerJ. L.KalyanaramanS.GeorgeT. J.Jr. (2017). Innovation or Inconsistency? Framing Colorectal Cancer Guidelines to Improve Public Perceptions of Updated Screening Recommendations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 14-27.
19.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014, March). Ensuring the right skills for our future (Media release). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia: Australian Government.
20.
PieczkaM.EscobarO. (2013). Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 40, 113-126.
21.
ProchaskaJ. O.VelicerW. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Health Promotion, 12, 6-7.
22.
ReubenE.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403-4408.
23.
RiceR. E.GilesH. (2017). The Contexts and Dynamics of Science Communication and Language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 127-139.
24.
RiedlingerM.GalloisC.McKayS.PittamJ. (2004). Impact of social group processes and functional diversity on communication in networked organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 55-79.
25.
StrekalovaY. A.KriegerJ. L.NeilJ.CaughlinJ. P.KleinhekselA. J.KotranzaA. (2017). I Understand How You Feel: The Language of Empathy in Virtual Clinical Training. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 61-79.
26.
WrayA. (2017). The Language of Dementia Science and the Science of Dementia Language: Linguistic Interpretations of an Interdisciplinary Research Field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 80-95.
