Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Scientists are being called upon to communicate more clearly, strategically, and frequently with the public. An understudied, but influential, outreach method is writing newspaper op-ed commentaries. Using speech act theory as a framework, this qualitative analysis of the objectives and strategies scientists enact when writing op-eds found that writers focus on informing, defending, and exciting about science through personal stories, accessible descriptions of research, and references to history and popular culture. This study’s application of speech act theory to empirically derived objectives expressed by scientists and enacted in a specific mode of communication helps advance science communication beyond deficit-oriented models toward styles of outreach that take the audience’s interpretive agency into account.

Keywords

media advocacy newspapers op-eds qualitative analysis science communication speech act theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85.

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3-11.

Besley

J. C.

(2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Storksdieck

(2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220.

Besley

J. C.

Nisbet

(2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743

Bronson

(2014). Reflecting on the science in science communication. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39, 523-537.

Brossard

(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096-14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110

Bucchi

(2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 904-915.

10.

Ciofalo

(1998). Survey probes status of op-ed journalism and practices of op-ed editors. Newspaper Research Journal, 19(2), 18.

11.

Ciofalo

Traverso

(1994). Does the op-ed page have a chance to become a public forum? Newspaper Research Journal, 15(4), 51-63.

12.

Davies

S. R.

(2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.

13.

Day

Golan

(2005). Source and content diversity in op-ed pages: Assessing editorial strategies in The New York Times and the Washington Post. Journalism Studies, 6(1), 61-71. doi:10.1080/141670052000328212

14.

Dietz

(2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14081-14087. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110

15.

Dudo

(2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:1075547012460845

16.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

(2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148867

17.

Fischhoff

Davis

A. L.

(2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13664-13671.

18.

Fischhoff

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14031-14032.

19.

Fischhoff

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). The science of science communication II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13583-13584.

20.

Fortunato

J. A.

(2014). Setting the media agenda: A study of Angelina Jolie’s op-ed announcing her undergoing a preventative double mastectomy. Florida Communication Journal, 42(1), 1-9.

21.

Frankel

M. S.

(2015). An empirical exploration of scientists’ social responsibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2, 301-310.

22.

Goodwin

(2014). Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 79-98.

23.

Goodwin

(forthcoming). Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Priest

J. Goodwin

Dahlstrom

(Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 151-160. doi:10.1002/wcc.262

25.

Gordon

J. C.

Deines

Havice

(2010). Global warming coverage in the media: Trends in a Mexico City newspaper. Science Communication, 32, 143-170.

26.

Grice

H. P.

(1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 62, 397-388.

27.

Gunter

V. J.

Harris

C. K.

(1998). Noisy winter: The DDT controversy in the years before Silent Spring. Rural Sociology, 63, 179-198. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00670.x

28.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646

29.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2013). Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 606-623.

30.

Kueffer

Larson

B. M.

(2014). Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience, 64, 719-724

31.

Liang

L. Y.-F.

Yeo

S. K.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

. . . Corley

E. A.

(2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 772-791. doi:1077699014550092

32.

Lin

S. F.

Lin

H. S.

Lee

Yore

L. D.

(2015). Are science comics a good medium for science communication? The case for public learning of nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5, 276-294.

33.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Linková

Stöckelová

(2012). Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment. Science and Public Policy, 39, 618-629.

35.

Maillé

M. È.

Saint-Charles

Lucotte

(2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 70-79.

36.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

37.

National Science Foundation. (2014). Graduate research fellowship program. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14590/nsf14590.htm

38.

Neuman

W. R.

(1990). The threshold of public attention. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 159-176.

39.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 809-823. doi:10.1002/wcc.317

40.

Nisbet

M. C.

Markowitz

(2015). Expertise in an age of polarization: Evaluating scientists’ political awareness and communication behaviors. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 136-154.

41.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.

42.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf

44.

Poliakoff

Webb

T. L.

(2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.

45.

Retzbach

Maier

(2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42, 429-456. doi:10.1177/0093650214534967

46.

Riesch

(2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 768-775. doi:10.1177/0963662514546299

47.

Ritchie

Lewis

(Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Rowan

K. E.

(1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 300-329.

49.

Ryan

G. W.

(1999). Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Human Organization, 58, 313-322.

50.

Sanders

C. B.

Cuneo

C. J.

(2010). Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology, 44, 325-343.

51.

Sharon

A. J.

Baram-Tsabari

(2014). Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 528-546. doi:10.1177/0963662512469916

52.

Shema

Bar-Ilan

Thelwall

(2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS One, 7(5), e35869.

53.

Sommer

Maycroft

J. R.

(2008). Influencing public policy: An analysis of published op-eds by academics. Politics & Policy, 36, 586-613. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00122.x

54.

Sugimoto

C. R.

Thelwall

(2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 663-674.

55.

Sweeney

Greenwood

K. E.

Williams

Wykes

Rose

D. S.

(2013). Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: The case for multiple coding. Health Expectations, 16, e89-e99.

56.

Takahashi

Meisner

(2014). Re-examining the media-policy link: Climate change and government elites in Peru. In Crow

D. A.

Boykoff

M. T.

(Eds.), Culture, politics and climate change: How information shapes our common future (pp. 102-120). New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Uhlenbrock

Landau

Hankin

(2014). Science communication and the role of scientists in the policy discussion. In Drake

J. L.

Kontar

Y. Y.

Rife

G. S.

(Eds.), New trends in earth-science outreach and engagement (pp. 93-105). New York, NY: Springer.

58.

Ungar

(2000). Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 297-312.

59.

Varner

(2014). Scientific outreach: Toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience, 64, 333-340. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu021

60.

H. T.

Guo

McCombs

M. E.

(2014). Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads” A network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 669-686. doi:10.1177/1077699014550090

61.

Weaver

Bimber

(2008). Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 515-530.

62.

Weingart

Pansegrau

(1999). Reputation in science and prominence in the media: The Goldhagen debate. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 1-16.

63.

Winter

J. P.

Eyal

C. H.

(1981). Agenda setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-383.

64.

H. D.

(2007). A brave new world for international news? Exploring the determinants of the coverage of foreign news on US websites. International Communication Gazette, 69, 539-551.

From Apes to Whistleblowers

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References