This paper aims to reveal the social representations about the nature and the evolution of Space-Science & Astronomy, Genetics & Biotechnology, Natural Sciences and Engineering & Informatics, through analyzing active (i.e., original and creative) metaphors found in 2303 technoscientific articles published in four Greek daily newspapers and two popular scientific magazines. The analysis showed that all metaphors concerning the nature of the four disciplinary fields can be clustered into four superordinate categories that juxtapose these fields to: (1) a construct; (2) a supernatural process; (3) an activity extending the frontiers of knowledge; (4) a dipole of promise and/or scare. The most frequently employed category is that representing technoscience as an activity extending the frontiers of knowledge. Furthermore, the evolution of the four disciplines is mainly represented as a violent process. Each discipline though, seems to be characterized by combinations of different categories of metaphors. Therefore each discipline evokes different social representations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agassi, J. (1996) “The Confusion between Science and Technology in the Standard Philosophies of Science.”Technology and Culture7: 348–366 .
2.
Barns, I. (1993) “Interpreting Media Images of Science and Technology.”Media Information Australia54: 22–29 .
3.
Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (1999) “Towards a Paradigm for Research on Social Representations.”Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior29: 163–186 .
4.
Bauer, M. and Schoon, I. (1993) “Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science.”Public Understanding of Science2: 141–155 .
5.
Black, M. (1979) “More about Metaphor.” In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp.19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
6.
Broks, P. (1993) “Science, Media and Culture: British Magazines, 1890–1914.”Public Understanding of Science2: 123–139 .
7.
Brown, R.H. (1977) A Poetics for Sociology:Towards Logic of Discovery for the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Bucchi, M. (1998) “Surely You Are Cooking, Mr Feynman! Strategies for presentation of Science in TV.” Paper presented at the Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, September, Berlin.
9.
Daamen, D.D.L. , van der Lans, I.A. and Midden, C.J.H. (1990) “Cognitive Structures in the Perception of Modern Technologies.”Science, Technology & Human Values15: 202–225 .
10.
Dimopoulos, K. and Koulaidis, V. (2002) “The Socio-epistemic Constitution of Science and Technology in the Greek Press: An Analysis of Its Presentation.”Public Understanding of Science11: 225–241 .
11.
Driver, R. , Leach, J. , Millar, R. and Scott, P. (1996) Young People’s Images of Science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press .
12.
Eurobarometer 55.2 (2001) Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission DG Research .
13.
Farr, R.M. (1993) “Common Sense, Science and Social Representations.”Public Understanding of Science2: 189–204 .
14.
Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989) “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: Constructionist Approach.”American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37 .
15.
Gans, H. (1979) Deciding What’s News. New York: Pantheon .
16.
Gaskell, G. (1999) “Towards a Paradigm for Research on Social Representations.”Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour29(2): 163–186 .
17.
Gieryn, T.F. (1995) “Boundaries of Science.” In S. Jasanoff , Markle, G. E. , J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 393–443. London: SAGE .
18.
Goatly, A. (2000) The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge .
19.
Hansen, A. , Cottle, S. , Negrine, R. and Newbold, C. (1998) Mass Communication Research Methods. London: Macmillan Press .
20.
Hesse, M. (1966) Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press .
21.
Holton, G. (1998) “Metaphors in Science and Education.” In G. Holton (ed.) The Advancement of Science and Its Burdens, pp. 229–252. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
22.
Hornig, S. (1990) “Television’s NOVA and the Construction of Scientific Truth.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication7: 11–23 .
23.
Katz, A.N. , ed. (1998) Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press .
24.
La Follette, M. (1990) Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910–1955. Chicago: Chicago University Press .
25.
Lakoff, G. and Johson, M. (2000) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press .
26.
Lederman, N.G. (1992) “Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: a Review of the Research.”Journal of Research in Science Teaching29: 331–359 .
27.
Lederman, N.G. and Zeidler, D.L. (1987) “Science Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Do They Really Influence Teaching Behavior?”Science Education71: 721–734 .
28.
Liakopoulos, M. (2002) “Pandora’s Box or Panacea? Using Metaphors to Create the Public Representations of Biotechnology.”Public Understanding of Science11: 5–32 .
29.
Long, M. and Steinke, J. (1996) “The Thrill of Everyday Science: Images of Science and Scientists on Children’s Educational Science Programmes in the United States.”Public Understanding of Science5: 101–119 .
30.
Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (2000) Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge. London: Routledge .
31.
Miller, J.D. (1983) “Scientific Literacy: a Conceptual and Empirical Review.”Daedalus112: 29–48 .
32.
Miller, J.D. (1998) “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy.”Public Understanding of Science7: 203–223 .
33.
Miller, J.D. (2000) The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States:A Report to the National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Indicators 2000. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation .
34.
Miller, J.D. , Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada. Madrid: Fundacion BBV .
35.
Moscovici, S. (1984) “The Phenomenon of Social Representations.” In R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
36.
Neidhardt, F. (1993) “The Public as a Communication System.”Public Understanding of Science2: 339–350 .
37.
Nelkin, D. (1990) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman .
38.
Nelkin, D. (1994) “Promotional Metaphors and their Popular Appeal.”Public Understanding of Science3: 25–31 .
39.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S.M. (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: Freeman .
40.
Office of Science and Technology and the Welcome Trust (2000) Science and the Public:A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. London: Author .
41.
St. Clair, R.N. (2002) The Major Metaphors of European Thought: Growth, Game, Language, Drama, Machine, Time and Space. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press .
42.
Sensales, G. (1994) “The Communication Systems of Representations: Psychosocial Research into the Representations of Computers and Information Technology in Italian Daily Newspapers.”Public Understanding of Science3: 347–363 .
43.
Shapin, S. (1992) “Why the Public Ought to Understand Science-in-the-Making.”Public Understanding of Science1: 27–30 .
44.
Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (1989) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
45.
Wagner, W. , Kronberger, N. , Allum, N. , Cheveigne, S. et al. (2002) “Pandora’s Genes-images of Genes and Nature.” In M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 244–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
46.
Yearley, S. (1994) “Understanding Science from the Prospective of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: an Overview.”Public Understanding of Science3: 245–258 .
