This article provides a conceptual history of science mass communication, which is seen as divided into the scientific literacy and interactive science traditions. The origins of the ideas that underlie the scientific literacy and interactive science traditions, as well as some of the issues researchers have raised, are introduced. The author argues the two traditions are not mutually exclusive, although the interactive tradition is a response to the applied problems within the scientific literacy model. It is argued that the pace of research might be accelerated if there were a more comprehensive collaboration among science communication, health communication, and risk communication scholarship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angell, M.
1996. Science on trial: The clash of medical evidence. New York: Norton.
2.
Bandura, A.
1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Blakeslee, S.
, ed. 1986. Human heart replacement: A new challenge for physicians and reporters. Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications.
4.
Boorstin, D.
1961. The image: A guide to pseudo events in America. New York: Athaneum.
5.
Bronowski, J.
1973. The ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown.
6.
Burnham, J.
1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
7.
Carey, J. W.
1989. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
8.
Cohn, V.
1988. News and numbers: A guide to reporting statistical claims and controversies in health and other fields. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
9.
Council of Scientific Society Presidents
. 1991. Bridging the communications gap: A Wingspread workshop on strengthening relationships between scientists and journalists. Washington, DC: Council of Scientific Society Presidents.
10.
Davidson, K.
1999. Carl Sagan: A life. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Dornan, C.1990. Some problems of conceptualizing the issue of “science and the media.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:48-71.
12.
Dunwoody, S.
1986. The scientist as source. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 3-16. New York: Free Press.
13.
Dunwoody, S.
1999. Scientists, journalists and the meaning of uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 59-80. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Efron, E.
1985. The apocalyptics: How environmental politics controls what we know about cancer. New York: Simon & Schuster.
15.
Einsiedel, E. F.1992. Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science1:164-188.
16.
Einsiedel, E. F.
, and B. Thorne. 1999. Public responses to uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 43-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Eksterowicz, A. J.
2000. The history and development of public journalism. In Public journalism and political knowledge, edited by A. J. Eksterowicz and R. N. Roberts, 3-20. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
Farquhar, J. W.
, P. Magnus, and N. Maccoby. 1981. The role of public information and education in cigarette smoking control. Canadian Journal of Public Health72:412-460.
19.
Fawcett, S. B.
, V. T. Francisco, A. Paine-Andrews, and J. A. Schultz. 2000. A model memorandum of collaboration: A proposal. Public Health Reports115:174-179.
20.
Flatow, I.
1997. Broadcast science journalism: Magazine style. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 38-42. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Freimuth, V.
, R. Greenburg, J. DeWitt, and R. Romano. 1984. Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of Communication34:62-73.
22.
Friedman, S. M.
1999. The never ending story of dioxin. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 113-136. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Friedman, S. M.
, C. M. Gorney, and B. P. Egolf. 1992. Chernobyl coverage: How the US media treated the nuclear industry. Public Understanding of Science1:305-323.
24.
Friedman, S. M.
, K. Villamil, R. A. Suriano, and B. P. Egolf. 1996. Alar and apples: Newspapers, risk and media responsibility. Public Understanding of Science5 (1): 1-20.
25.
Fumento, M.
1993. Balancing technology and the environment: Science under siege. New York: William Morrow.
26.
Gerbner, G.1987. Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology3: 109-115.
27.
Gerbner, G.
, L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1980. The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile No. 11. Journal of Communication30 (3): 1-29.
28.
Gerbner, G.
, L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1981. Health and medicine on television. New England Journal of Medicine305 (15): 901-904.
29.
Gerbner, G.
, L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1986. Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In Perspectives on media effects, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman, 17-40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Goodell, R.
1977. The visible scientists. Boston: Little, Brown.
31.
Green, L. W.
, and M. W. Kreuter. 1999. Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach. 3d ed.Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
32.
Greenberg, D.1974. Let's hear it for science. Columbia Journalism Review13:19-24.
33.
Gregory, J.
, and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum.
34.
Guttman, N.
2000. Public health communication interventions: Values and ethical dilemmas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Haff, G.1976. Science writing in American mass media. Nieman Reports30:18-24.
36.
Hardt, H.
, 1999. Shifting paradigms: Decentering the discourse of mass communication. Mass Communication and Society3:175-184.
37.
Hardt, H.
, and J. W. Carey. 2001. Social theories of the press. 2d ed.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
Hart, R.1984. Shamans and criers: Responsibilities in science reporting. Quill72:24-28.
39.
Hartz, J.
, and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center, Freedom Forum.
40.
Hilgartner, S.1990. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science20:519-539.
41.
Hilgartner, S.
, and C. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
42.
Holton, G.
1993. Science and anti-science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Illich, I.
1975. Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. London: Calder & Boyers.
44.
Krieghbaum, H.
1967. Science and the mass media. New York: New York University Press.
45.
Laetsch, W.
1987. A basis for better public understanding of science. In Communicating science to the public, CIBA Foundation Conference, 1-10. New York: John Wiley.
46.
Lambeth, E.
1992. Committed journalism: An ethic for the profession. 2d ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
47.
Lambeth, E.
, P. Meyer, and E. Thorson. 1998. Assessing public journalism. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
48.
Lewenstein, B.1992. Public understanding of science in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science1:45-68.
49.
Logan, R. A.1985. Commentary: Rationales for investigative and explanatory trends in science reporting. Newspaper Research Journal7 (1): 53-58.
50.
Logan, R. A.
1991. Popularization and secularization: Media coverage of health. In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 43-60. New York: Greenwood.
51.
Logan, R. A.1999. Worlds apart: A review essay. Science Communication20:337-343.
52.
Logan, R. A.
, L. Fears, and N. F. Wilson. 1997. Social responsibility in science news: Four case studies. Washington, DC: Media Institute.
53.
Logan, R. A.
, and D. R. Longo. 1999. Rethinking anti-smoking campaigns: Two generations of research and some issues for the next. Journal of Health Care Finance25 (4): 77-90.
54.
Logan, R. A.
, P. Zengjun, and N. Fraser Wilson. 2000a. Prevailing impressions in science and medical news: A content analysis of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. Science Communication22:27-45.
55.
Logan, R. A.
, P. Zengjun, and N. Fraser Wilson. 2000b. Science and medical coverage in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post: A six year perspective. Science Communication22:5-26.
56.
MacLean, M. S. Jr.1965. Some multivariate designs for communication research. Journalism Quarterly27 (4): 614-622.
57.
MacLean, M. S. Jr.
1967. Systems of news communication. In Communication: Theory and research, edited by L. Thayer, 289-309. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
58.
Mazur, A.1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication31:106-115.
59.
McQuail, D.
2000. McQuail's mass communication theory. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
Miller, J.1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112:29-48.
61.
Miller, J.
1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 55-69. New York: Free Press.
62.
Miller, J.
1987. Scientific literacy in the United States. In Communicating science to the public, CIBA Foundation Conference, 19-37. New York: John Wiley.
63.
Miller, J.1998. The measurement of scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7:1-21.
64.
Miller, J.
2000. The development of civic scientific literacy in the United States. In Science, technology and society, edited by L. Kumar and D. Chubin, 21-47. New York: Plenum.
65.
Murray, D.
, J. Schwartz, and S. R. Lichter. 2001. It ain't necessarily so: How media make and unmake the scientific picture of reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
66.
National Science Board
. 2000. Science and engineering indicators 2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
67.
Nelkin, D.
1991. Why is science writing so uncritical of science? In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, ix-xiii. New York: Greenwood.
68.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: Freeman.
69.
Paulos, J.
1988. Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Vintage.
70.
Paulos, J.
1995. A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books.
71.
Perlman, D.1974. Science and the mass media. Daedalus103:207-222.
72.
Plough, A.
, and S. Krimsky. 1987. The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, & Human Values12 (3-4): 4-10.
73.
Powell, D.
, and W. Leiss. 1997. Mad cows and mother's milk: The perils of poor risk communication. Montreal, Canada: McGill Queens University Press.
74.
Prewitt, K.1982. The public and science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:5-14.
75.
Prewitt, K.1983. Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Daedalus112:49-64.
76.
Putnam, R. D.
1993. Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77.
Putnam, R. D.
2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
78.
Rakow, L. F.
1989. Information and power: Toward a critical theory of information campaigns. In Information campaigns: Balancing social values and social change, edited by C. Salmon, 164-184. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79.
Rogers, C. L.
1986. The practitioner in the middle. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 42-54. New York: Free Press.
80.
Rogers, C. L.
1997. Introduction. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 213-216. New York: Oxford University Press.
81.
Ropeik, D.
1997. Broadcast science journalism: Reporting news. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 35-38. New York: Oxford University Press.
82.
Rosen, J.
1999. What are journalists for?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
83.
Rowan, K.
1999. Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 202-223. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
84.
Rowan, K.
2001. Whose side are you on? Perceptions of effective science news coverage among scientists, journalists, and public affairs officers. Paper delivered to the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, San Francisco, February.
85.
Salisbury, D.
1997. College and universities. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 217-225. New York: Oxford University Press.
86.
Salmon, C. T.
1989. Campaigns for social “improvement”: An overview of values, rationales and impacts. In Information campaigns: Balancing social values and social change, edited by C. Salmon, 19-53. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
87.
Severin, W. J.
, and J. W. Tankard Jr. 1997. Communication theories: Origins, methods and uses in the mass media. New York: Addison-Wesley.
88.
Shannon, C.
, and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
89.
Shoemaker, P.
, and S. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
90.
Signorielli, N.
1993. Mass media images and impact on health: A sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
91.
Silver, B.
1998. The ascent of science. New York: Oxford University Press.
92.
Singer, E.1990. A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication37:10-36.
93.
Slossen, E.
, and J. E. Downey. 1922. Plots and personalities: A new method of testing and training the creative imagination. New York: Century.
94.
Slovic, P.1987a. Informing the public about risk. Risk Analysis4:403-415.
95.
Slovic, P.1987b. Perception of risk. Science35:280-285.
96.
Slovic, P.
, B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1993. Rating the risks. In Readings in risk, edited by T. Glickman and M. Gough, 61-75. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
97.
Snow, C. P.
1993. The two cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98.
Sontag, S.
1988. AIDS and its metaphors. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
99.
Stephenson, W.
1973. Lake Ozark symposium on science news. Columbia, MO: National Science Foundation.
100.
Strasburger, V.1989. Prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Why “just say no” just won't work. Journal of Pediatrics114:4, 676-681.
101.
Tobey, R.
1971. The American ideology of national science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
102.
Trachtman, L.1981. The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:10-15.
103.
Tremayne, M. W.
, and S. Dunwoody. 2001. Using think aloud protocols to compare the usefulness of science Web sites to the public. Paper delivered to the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, San Francisco, February.
104.
Wallack, L.
1993. Media advocacy and public health: Power for prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
105.
Warhover, T. A.
2000. Public journalism and the press: The Virginian-Pilot experience. In Public journalism and political knowledge, edited by A. J. Eksterowicz and R. N. Roberts, 43-60. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
106.
Warner, K.
1989. The epidemiology of coffin nails. In Health risks and the press, edited by M. Moore, 73-89. Washington, DC: Media Institute.
107.
Weigold, M. F.2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23:164-194.
108.
Westley, B. H.
, and M. MacLean Jr.1957. A conceptual model for communication research. Journalism Quarterly34:1, 31-38.
109.
Wilkins, L.
1987. Shared vulnerability: The mass media and American perception of the Bhopal disaster. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
110.
Wilkins, L.
1989. Bhopal: The politics of mediated risk. In Bad tidings: Communication and catastrophe, edited by L. M. Walters, L. Wilkins, and T. Walters, 21-34. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
111.
Wilkins, L.
, and P. Patterson. 1987. Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication37:80-92.
112.
Woo, W.
2000. Public journalism: A critique. In Public journalism and political knowledge, edited by A. J. Eksterowicz and R. N. Roberts, 21-42. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
113.
Yankelovich, D.1982. Changing public attitudes to science and the quality of life. Science, Technology, & Human Values39:23-29.
114.
Yankelovich, D.
1991. Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
115.
Yankelovich, D.
1999. The magic of dialogue: Transforming conflict into cooperation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
