This final contribution to this special Journal of Language and Social Psychology issue on “using the science of language to improve translation of the language of science” places the articles in the context and nature of the broader literature on science communication, particularly as it relates to the media. This framework is crafted with a view to identifying the complex factors and processes that create translation problems, highlighting models and approaches that can improve science communication. Throughout, we propose a parsimonious set of research agenda items. Scholars wishing to move between different models of science communication should take into consideration the processes of formative evaluation, intergroup accommodation, and message design logics.
AtkinC. K.FreimuthV. (2012). Guidelines for formative evaluation research in campaign design. In RiceR. E.AtkinC. K. (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BakerM. (2016). 1,500 Scientists lift the lid on reproducibility: Survey sheds light on the “crisis” rocking research. Nature, 533, 452-454.
3.
BrownN. J. L.HeathersJ. A. J. (2016). The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. PeerJ Preprints, 4, e2064v1. doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2064v1
4.
BucchiM. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BucchiM. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 904-915.
6.
CeccarelliL. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 195-228.
7.
ConditC. M.LynchJ.WindermanE. (2012). Recent rhetorical studies in public understanding of science: Multiple purposes and strengths. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 86-400.
8.
CouplandN.WiemannJ. M.GilesH. (1991). Talk as “problem” and communication as “miscommunication”: An integrative analysis. In CouplandN.GilesH.WiemannJ. M. (Eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk (pp. 1-17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In DryzekJ. S.NorgaardR. B.SchlosbergD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144-160). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.
GasiorekJ. (2016). The “dark side” of CAT: Nonaccommodation. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 85-104). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
GilesH. (2008). Accommodating translational research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 121-127.
12.
GilesH. (Ed.). (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
GilesH. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GilesH.MaassA. (Eds.). (2016). Advances in intergroup communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
15.
GoreA. (2008). The assault on reason. London, England: Penguin.
16.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2016, November). Reducing the uncertainty and controversy about uncertainty and controversy framing in research on climate change journalism. Paper presented to National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA.
17.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.
18.
HaslamN.HollandE.StratemeyerM. (2016). Intergroup metaphors. In GilesH.MaassA. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 103-118). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
19.
JacobyS. (2009). The age of American unreason. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
20.
KahanD. M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.
21.
KisselburghL. G.BerkelaarB. L.BuzzanellP. M. (2009). Discourse, gender, and the meaning of work: Rearticulating science, technology, and engineering careers through communicative lenses. Annals of the International Communication Association, 33, 259-299.
22.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404.
23.
LievrouwL.CarleyK. (1991). Changing patterns of communication among scientists in an era of “Telescience.”Technology in Society, 12, 1-21.
24.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. (2016). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 435-445.
25.
NeresiniF.PellegriniG. (2008). Evaluating public communication of science and technology. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 237-251). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
O’KeefeB. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.
27.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
28.
PetersH. P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 131-146). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
PierceC. P. (2010). Idiot America: How stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
30.
Rebich-HespanhaS.RiceR. E. (2016). Dominant visual frames in climate change news stories: Implications for formative evaluation in climate change campaigns. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4830-4862.
31.
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.
32.
RiceR. E.AtkinC. K. (Eds.). (2012). Public communication campaigns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
RoanS. (2001). Bringing science communication into the new millennium. Fertility and Sterility, 76, 11-12.
34.
SalmonD. A.DudleyM. Z.GlanzJ. M.OmerS. B. (2015). Vaccine hesitancy: Causes, consequences, and a call to action. Vaccine, 33, D66-D71.
35.
SchäferM. S. (2012). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 650-663.
36.
SuleskiJ.IbarakiM. (2010). Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 115-125.
37.
WeigoldM. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164-193.
38.
WeirK. (2016). Climate change is threatening mental health. Monitor on Psychology, 47, 28-29.
39.
WilliamsP. (2016, June27). Digging for glory. The New Yorker, pp. 46-57.
40.
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.
