The public communication of science and technology largely depends on their framing in the news media, but scientists’ role in this process has only been explored indirectly. This study focuses on storied accounts told by scientists when asked to present their research or provide expert advice in the course of a news interview. A total of 150 items from a current affairs talk show broadcast in the Israeli media were explored through a methodology combining narrative and conversation analysis. Using the concept of framing as originally proposed by Erving Goffman, we show that researchers use personal accounts as a way of reframing news stories introduced by the program hosts. Elements of method and rationale, which are usually considered technical and are shunned in journalistic reports, emerged as a crucial element in the accounts that experts themselves provided. The implications for framing research and science communication training are discussed.
AinsworthSHardyC (2012) Subjects of inquiry: Statistics, stories, and the production of knowledge. Organization Studies33: 1693–1714.
2.
AlbaekE (2011) The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism12: 335–348.
3.
AllanSAndersonAPetersenA (2010) Framing risk: Nanotechnologies in the news. Journal of Risk Research13: 29–44.
4.
AndersonAPetersenADavidM (2005) Communication or spin? Source-media relations in science journalism. In: AllanS (ed.) Journalism: Critical Issues. Berkshire: Open University Press, pp. 188–198.
5.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2013) An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication35: 56–85.
6.
BarelYBaram-TsabariAPelegRArmonRRavehA (2015) Towards Evidence Based Science Communication Policy in Israel: Science Coverage in the Israeli News Media (October2013–April2014). Haifa: Samuel Neeman Institute for National Policy Research.
7.
BellA (1991) The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
BesleyJCNisbetMC (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science22: 644–659.
9.
BoldenGB (2009) Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs76: 121–143.
10.
BoldenGBRobinsonJD (2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication61: 94–119.
11.
BourdaaMKonsmanJPSécailCVenturiniTVeyrat-MassonIGononF (2015) Does television reflect the evolution of scientific knowledge? The case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder coverage on French television. Public Understanding of Science24: 200–209.
12.
BrunerJ (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BrunerJ (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry18: 1–21.
14.
CambrosioAKeatingP (1988) “Going monoclonal”: Art, science, and magic in the day-to-day use of Hybridoma technology. Social Problems35: 244–260.
15.
ClaessensM (2008) European trends in scienced communication. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, pp. 27–38.
16.
ClaymanSE (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In: DrewPHeritageJ (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–198.
17.
ClaymanSEHeritageJ (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CollinsH (1987) Certainty and the Public Understanding of Science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science17: 689–713.
19.
CollinsHEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
CurtisR (1994) Narrative form and normative force: Baconian story-telling in popular science. Social Studies of Science24: 419–461.
21.
Dori-HacohenG (2014) Establishing social groups in Hebrew: “We” in political radio phone-in programs. In: PavlidouT-S (ed.) Constructing Collectivity: “We” across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–206.
22.
EvansRKotchetkovaILangerS (2009) Just around the corner: Rhetorics of progress and promise in genetic research. Public Understanding of Science18: 43–59.
23.
FeldmanLMaibachEWRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2011) Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics20: 1–29.
24.
FetzerA (2014) Judge us on what we do: The strategic use of collective we in British political discourse. In: PavlidouT-S (ed.) Constructing Collectivity: “We” across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 331–350.
25.
GabrielY (2004) The voice of experience and the voice of the expert: Can they speak to each other? In: HurwitzBGreenhalghTSkultansV (eds) Narrative Research in Health and Illness. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 168–186.
26.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.
27.
GeorgakopoulouA (2007) Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
28.
GierynT (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GilbertGNMulkayMJ (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
31.
GoffmanE (1981) Footing. In: GoffmanE (ed.) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 124–159.
32.
GoodwinC (2007) Interactive footing. In: HoltECliftR (eds) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.
33.
GouyonJB (2016) Science and film-making. Public Understanding of Science25: 17–30.
34.
HamoM (2015) I have nothing to do but agree: Affiliative meta-discursive follow-ups as a resource for the reciprocal positioning of journalists, experts and politicians-as-experts in television news. In: WeizmanEFetzerA (eds) Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 57–80.
35.
HaranJKitzingerJ (2009) Modest witnessing and managing the boundaries between science and the media: A case study of breakthrough and scandal. Public Understanding of Science18: 634–652.
36.
HarawayDJ (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York, NY and London: Routledge.
37.
HeritageJGreatbatchD (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In: BodenDZimmermanDH (eds) Talk and Social Structure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 93–137.
38.
HermanD (1994) Textual “You” and double deixis in Edna O’Brien’s A Pagan Place. Style28: 378–410.
39.
HilgartnerS (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
HoldenK (2014) Lamenting the golden age: Love, labour and loss in the collective memory of scientists. Science as Culture24: 24–45.
41.
HoltE (1996) Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction29: 219–245.
42.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
JeffersonG (1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In: SchenkeinJ (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 219–248.
44.
KirbyDA (2011) Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.
45.
KripsH (1995) Rhetoric, ideology, and desire in von Neumann’s Gründlagen. In: KripsHMcguireJEMeliaT (eds) Science, Reason, and Rhetoric. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 279–293.
46.
LehmkuhlMKaramanidouCMöräTPetkovaKTrenchB (2012) Scheduling science on television: A comparative analysis of the representations of science in 11 European countries. Public Understanding of Science21: 1002–1018.
47.
LeónB (2008) Science related information in European television: A study of prime-time news. Public Understanding of Science17: 443–460.
48.
LivingstoneSMLuntP (1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge.
49.
LynchM (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
50.
McAdamsDP (2008) Personal narratives and the life story. In: JohnOPRobinsRWPervinLA (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, pp. 242–262.
51.
MaeseeleP (2011) On news media and democratic debate: Framing agricultural biotechnology in Northern Belgium. International Communication Gazette73: 83–105.
52.
ManshfroindY (2009) Future forces and scientific judgments (Hebrew). The Seventh Eye. Available at: http://www.the7eye.org.il/34611 (accessed 22 December 2012).
53.
MatoesianGM (1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society28: 491–521.
54.
MellorF (2003) Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science33: 509–538.
55.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115–120.
56.
MontgomeryM (2007) Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach, London: Routledge.
57.
MyersG (1990) Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
58.
NielsenKHAutzenC (2011) Looking over the shoulders of researchers: In quest of a research-media partnership and online, news media–based researcher identities on the Galathea 3 Expedition from 2006 to 2007. Science Communication33: 472–500.
59.
NisbetMC (2009) Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In: KahlorLStoutPA (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Science Communication. Oxon; New-York: Routledge, pp. 40–67.
60.
NisbetMCBrossardDKroepschA (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics8: 36–70.
61.
OchsECappsL (2001) Living narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
PotterJ (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: SAGE.
63.
PotterJWetherellMChittyA (1991) Quantification rhetoric—Cancer on television. Discourse & Society2: 333–365.
64.
ReedMI (1996) Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical synthesis. Organization Studies17: 573–597.
65.
ReeseSD (2001) Prologue—Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In: ReeseSDGandyOHGrantAE (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 7–31.
RiessmanCK (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
68.
RothAL (1998) Who makes the news? Descriptions of television news interviewees’ public personae. Media, Culture & Society20: 79–107.
69.
RuhrmannGGuentherLKesslerSHMildeJ (2015) Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. Public Understanding of Science24: 681–696.
70.
SampsonCAtkinsonP (2013) The golden star: An emotional repertoire of scientific discovery and legacy. The Sociological Review61: 573–590.
71.
ShapinS (1992) Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making. Public Understanding of Science1: 27–30.
72.
ShapinSSchafferS (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
StiversTHayashiM (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society39: 1–25.
74.
SumnerPVivian-GriffithsSBoivinJWilliamsAVenetisCADaviesAet al. (2014) The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. British Medical Journal349: g7015.
75.
TannenD (1992) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
ThornborrowJ (2001) Has it ever happened to you?’: Talk show stories as mediated performance. In: TolsonA (ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performances, Spectacle. London: Routledge, pp. 117–137.
77.
Van DijkJ (2006) Picturing science: The science documentary as a multimedia spectacle. In: WillemsJGöpfertW (eds) Science and the Power of TV. Amsterdam: VU University Press and Da Vinci Institute, pp. 47–62.
78.
Van DijkTA (1988) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
79.
VerhoevenP (2010) Sound-bite science: On the brevity of science and scientific experts in Western European television news. Science Communication32: 330–355.
80.
WillemsJGöpfertW (2006) Science and the Power of TV. Amsterdam: VU University Press and Da Vinci Institute.
81.
WooffittR (1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organization of Factual Discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
82.
YinRK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
83.
ZimmermanDH (1998) Discourse identities and social identities. In: AntakiCWiddicombeS (eds) Identities in Talk. London: SAGE, pp. 87–106.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
