In this case study, we analyze the discourse, practices and representations of a group of scientists who issued public statements about the French shale gas controversy. The reasons they gave for engaging in this process of communication focused on their social responsibility, their collective ad hoc expertise and the neutrality of their position. We also investigated how these scientists actually produced their communications, despite the tensions between individual and collective positions. We discuss how this experience led them to reflect both individually and collectively on their representations of science in society.
BabouI.Le MarecJ. (2008). Professional communication in scientific institutions: An autonomization process. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 2(1), 115-142.
2.
BatellierP.SauvéL. (2011). La mobilisation des citoyens autour du gaz de schiste au Québec : les leçons à tirer. Gestion, 36, 49-58.
3.
BesleyJ. C.KramerV. L.PriestS. H. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risk, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 549-558.
4.
BesleyJ. C.NisbetM. (2011). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 1-16.
5.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
6.
BesleyJ. C.TannerA. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33, 239-263.
7.
BoyD. (2007). Enquête sur la responsabilité sociale du scientifique [An inquiry on the social responsability of the scientist]. In AlixJ. P. (Ed.), Sciences et société en mutations: Actes du colloque du 12 février 2007 (pp. 48-56). Paris, France: CNRS Editions.
8.
BourdieuP. (2002). Pour un savoir engagé, Sciences sociales et action politique [For a political committed knowledge. Social sciences and political action]. Marseille, France: Agone.
9.
CallonM.LascoumesP.BartheY. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CasiniS.NeresiniF. (2012). Behind closed doors: scientists’ and science communicators’ discourses on science in society. A study across European research institutions. Tecnoscienza, 3, 37-62.
11.
ChateaureynaudF. (2007). La contrainte argumentative: Les formes de l’argumentation entre cadres délibératifs et puissances d’expression politique [The argumentative constraint: The forms of the argumentation between deliberative frames and powers of political expression]. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 45, 129-148.
12.
DaviesS.R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
13.
DietzT. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 14081-14087.
14.
de CheveignéS. (2002). Biotechnology policy: Can France move from centralized decision making to citizens’ governance?Science Communication, 24, 162-172.
15.
Géosciences Montpellier, Hydrosciences Montpellier & Observatoire de Recherche Méditerranéen de l’Université de Montpéllier 2. (2011). « Gaz de schiste », les questions qui se posent. Contribution au débat sur l’exploration pétrolière dans le Sud de la France [Shale gas. The questions we should ask. A contribution to the debate on petroleum exploration in the South of France]. (Report). Retrieved from http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_preliminaire_hydrocarbures_LR_par_UM2_29_janvier_2011.pdf
16.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
17.
HorstM. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35, 758-779.
18.
IrwinA.WynneB. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
JasanoffS. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26, 393-418.
20.
JensenP. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 26-36.
21.
JurdantB. (1993). Popularization of science as the autobiography of science. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 365-373.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
LatourB. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
LatourB. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Levy-LeblondJ. M. (2001). Science, culture et public: Faux problèmes et vraies questions [Science, culture and public: False problems and real questions]. Quaderni, 46, 95-103.
27.
Levy-LeblondJ. M. (2004). Science in want of culture. Paris, France: Futuribles, Perspectives.
28.
Martin-SempereM. J.Garzón-GarciaB.Rey-RochaJ. (2008). Scientists’ motivations to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 349-367.
29.
MizumachiE.MatsudaK.KanoK.KawakamiM.KatoK. (2011). Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: A study using “science cafes.”Journal of Science Communication, 10, 1-11.
30.
MolinattiG. (2011). Chercheurs et questions socialement vives: Quels contrats de communication? [Scientists and socioscientific issues: which communicational contracts?]. In LegardezA.SimonneauxL. (Eds.), Développement durable et autres questions d’actualité (pp. 341-362). Dijon, France: Educagri, Tranversales.
MoscoviciS. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In FarrR. M.MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
PaponP. (2014). Shale gas: Myths and realities. The stakes in this much-heralded revolution and its limitations. Futurible, 399, 81-98.
35.
PearsonG.PrinkleS.ThomasJ. N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6(3), 279-289.
36.
PestreD. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41, 245-261.
37.
PetersH. P. (2012). Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 217-239). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
38.
PetersH. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110(3), 14102-14109.
39.
PetersH. P.HeinrichsH.JungA.KallfassM.PetersonI. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 71-92). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
40.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predicts scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 249-263.
41.
RödderS. (2008). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life.”Public Understanding of Science, 18, 452-463.
SchieleB. (2005). Publiciser la science! Pour quoi faire? [Popularizing science! For what?]. In PaillardI., (Ed.), La publicisation de la science: Exposer, communiquer, débattre, publier, vulgariser (pp. 11-51). Grenoble, France: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
44.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
45.
VerónE. (2013). La Semiosis social 2 Ideas, momentos, interpretantes [The social semiosis 2. Ideas, periods, interpreters]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
46.
WeingartP. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879.
