Recent work has started to explore “scientific understandings of publics” alongside public understandings of science. This study builds on this work to examine the ways in which public communication is talked about by scientists and engineers. The author identifies a range of ways of talking about the purposes and content of science communication to the public, arguing that the dominant framework for these is one-way communication, and that, in addition, such communication tends to be constructed as difficult and dangerous. However, the author further identifies a range of minority discourses that understand public communication in more complex terms.
Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
2.
Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science , 5(4), 375-394.
3.
Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2002). Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature, 416(6878), 261.
4.
Burchell, K. (2007). Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 145-162.
5.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.
6.
Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P.T. (2004). "The scientists think and the public feels": Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society , 15(4), 433-449.
7.
Council for Science and Technology. (2005). Policy through dialogue: Informing policies based on science and technology . London: Author.
8.
Council for Science and Technology. (2007). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: A review of government's progress on its policy commitments. London: Author .
9.
Davies, S.R. (2007). Scientists and the public: Studies in discourse and dialogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Imperial College London.
10.
Davies, S.R. (2008). "A bit more cautious, a bit more critical": Science and the public in scientists' talk. In A. Bell, S. R. Davies, & F. Mellor (Eds.), Science and its publics: Following scientists into popular culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
11.
Davies, S.R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J.L., & Duensing, S. (in press). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science.
12.
Davis, T.H. (2004). Report: Engaging the public with science as it happens; The Current Science and Technology Center at the Museum of Science, Boston. Science Communication, 26(1), 107-113.
13.
Fiske, J. (1989). Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge.
14.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
15.
Frewer, L., Hunt, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2003). The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 75-85.
16.
Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. Boston : Little, Brown.
18.
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press .
19.
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519-539.
20.
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Third report: Science and society . London: The Stationery Office, Parliament.
21.
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science , 10(1), 1-18.
22.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385-411.
24.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research . Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
26.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton, UK: Studies in Education Ltd.
27.
Lehr, J.L., McCallie, E., Davies, S.R., Caron, B.R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The role and value of dialogue events as sites of informal science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1-21.
28.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics . London: Taylor and Francis.
29.
Lévy-Leblond, J.M. (1992). About misunderstandings about misunderstandings . Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 17-21.
30.
Locke, S. (2002). The public understanding of science-A rhetorical invention. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(1), 87-111.
31.
Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P., & Pohl, C. (2003). The reality of experts and the imagined lay person . Acta Sociologica, 46(2), 150-165.
32.
Michael, M. (1991). Discourses of danger and dangerous discourses: Patrolling the borders of science, nature and society. Discourse & Society, 2(1), 5-28.
33.
Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(3), 357-378.
34.
Michael, M., & Birke, L. (1994). Enrolling the core set: The case of the animal experimentation controversy. Social Studies of Science, 24(1), 81-95.
35.
Michael, M., & Brown, N. (2000). From the representation of publics to the performance of "lay political science." Social Epistemology, 14(1), 3-19.
36.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads . Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
37.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
38.
Mori (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London: The Wellcome Trust.
39.
Mulkay, M. (1981). Action and belief or scientific discourse? A possible way of ending intellectual vassalage in social studies of science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 163-171.
40.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. ( 2006). Debating science. London: Author.
41.
Pearson, G., Pringle, S.M., & Thomas, J.N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science . Public Understanding of Science, 6(3), 279-289.
42.
Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2002). Dialogue with the public: Practical guidelines. Swindon , UK: Author.
43.
Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2006). Science in society. Swindon, UK: Author.
44.
Reich, C., Chin, E., & Kunz, E. (2006). Museums as forum: Engaging science centre visitors in dialogues with scientists and one another. Informal Learning Review, 79(4), 1-8.
45.
The Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Author.
46.
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
47.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
48.
Stilgoe, J. (2007). The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 45-61.
49.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science , 13(1), 55-74.
50.
Turney, J. (1998). To know science is to love it? Observations from public understanding of science research. London: COPUS.
51.
Turney, J. (2006). Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. London: Wellcome Trust.
52.
Werskey, G. (1978). The visible college: A collective biography of British Scientists and socialists of the 1930s. London : Allen Lane.
53.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos .
54.
Wiseman, R. (1996). "MegaLab UK": Participatory science and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 5(2), 167-169.
55.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 111-121.
56.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445-481.
57.
Wynne, B. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50(3), 459-477.
58.
Young, N., & Matthews, R. (2007). Experts' understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science , 16(2), 123-144.
59.
Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 99-105.
