Scholars of science communication have identified many issues that may help to explain why science communication is not as “effective” as it could be. This article presents results from an exploratory study that consisted of an open-ended survey of science writers, editors, and science communication researchers. Results suggest that practitioners share many issues of concern to scholars. Implications are that a clear agenda for science communication research now exists and that empirical research is needed to improve the practice of communicating science
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ankney, R., P. Heilman, and J. Kolff. 1996. Newspaper coverage of the coronary artery bypass grafting report. Science Communication18:153-164.
2.
Burkett, W.1986. News reporting: Science, medicine, and high technology. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
3.
Dennis, E., and J. McCartney. 1979. Science journalists on metropolitan dailies. Journal of Environmental Education10:10-11.
4.
Dubas, O., and L. Martel1975. Media impact: A research study on science communication. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of State.
5.
Dunwoody, S.1986. When science writers cover the social sciences. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 67-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Friedman, S.1986. The journalist's world. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 17-41. New York: Free Press.
7.
Gascoigne, T., and J. Metcalfe. 1997. Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication18:265-282.
8.
Hartz, J., and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
9.
Ismach, A., and E. Dennis. 1978. A profile of newspaper and television reporters in a metropolitan setting. Journalism Quarterly55:741-741.
10.
Krieghbaum, H.1967. Science and the mass media. New York: New York University Press.
11.
Lewenstein, B.1992. Introduction. In When science meets the public, edited by B. Lewenstein, ix-xvi. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
12.
Lindlof, T.1995. Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Logan, R., P. Zengjun, and N. Wilson. 1998. Evaluating assertions about science writing, reporting, and news selection: A content analysis of theWashington Post andLos Angeles Times. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Baltimore, MD.
14.
Maienschein, J., and Students. 1999. Commentary: To the future'Arguments for scientific literacy. Science Communication21:75-87.
15.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 1989. Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
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.
17.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed. New York: Freeman.
18.
O'Keefe, T.1970. The mass media as sources of medical information for doctors. Journalism Quarterly47:95-100.
19.
Paisley, W.1998. Scientific literacy and the competition for public attention and understanding. Science Communication20:70-80.
20.
Palen, J.1994. A map for science reporters: Science, technology, and society studies concepts in basic reporting and news writing textbooks. Michigan Academician26:507-519.
21.
Patterson, J.1982. A Q study of attitudes of young adults about science news. Journalism Quarterly59:406-413.
22.
Press, A.1991. The impact of television on modes of reasoning. Critical Studies in Mass Communication8:421-441.
23.
Prewitt, K.1982. The public and science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:5-14.
24.
Shortland, M., and J. Gregory. 1991. Communicating science: A handbook. New York: Longman.
25.
Tobey, R.1971. The American ideology of natural science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26.
Trumbo, C., S. Dunwoody, and R. Griffin. 1998. Journalists, cognition, and the presentation of an epidemiological study. Science Communication19:238-265.
27.
Valenti, J.1999. Commentary: How well do scientists communicate to media?Science Communication21:172-178.
28.
Ziman, J.1992. Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In When science meets the public, edited by B. Lewenstein, 13-20. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
