This commentary demonstrates the relevance of James Carey’s ritual view of communication for the field of science communication. A ritual view of communication invites examination of the geographical, historical, and material dimensions of communication where dialogues, bodies, public spaces, and comestibles provide enabling conditions for democratic engagement. This is an opportune time for science communications scholars to engage with Carey’s ideas as the field moves from deficit accounts of communication to the dialogic and cultural models that have become more prevalent in recent decades. A ritual view highlights the importance of theoretical, humanist approaches as complements to empirical, instrumental accounts of science communication.
BratichJ. (2008). Fragments on machinic intellectuals. In ShukaitisS.GraberD. (Eds.), Constituent imagination: Militant investigations, collective theorization (pp. 137-154). Oakland, CA: AK Press.
2.
BucchiM. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Florence, KY: Routledge.
3.
BurnsT.O’ConnorD.StocklmayerS. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
4.
BroksP. (2006). Understanding popular science: Issues in cultural and media studies. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
5.
CallonM. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology, and Society, 4(1), 81-94.
6.
CareyJ. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
7.
CareyJ. (1997). Afterward: The culture in question. In MunsonE.WarrenC. (Eds.), James Carey: A critical reader (pp. 308-339). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8.
CareyJ.GrossbergL. (2006). From New England to Illinois: The invention of American cultural studies: James Carey in conversation with Lawrence Grossberg. Part I. In PackerJ.RobertsonC. (Eds.), Thinking with James Carey: Essays on communications, transportation, history (pp. 11-28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
DeweyJ. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1916)
13.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
14.
GrossbergL. (2009). The conversation of cultural studies. Cultural Studies, 23(2), 177-182.
15.
HilgartnerS. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
HorstM.DaviesS.IrwinA. (2016). Reframing science communication. In FeltU.FouchéR.MillerC. A.Smith-DoerrL. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 881-908). Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
HorstM.IrwinA. (2009). Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing, and false knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40, 105-126.
18.
IrwinA. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
19.
IrwinA.WynneB. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
JasanoffS. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
LongneckerN. (2016). An integrated model of science communication: More than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), 1-13.
22.
MedinD.BangM. (2014). The cultural side of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13621-13626.
23.
ParkinsonJ. (2012). Democracy and public space: The physical sites for democratic performance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
PriestS. (2010). Coming of age in the academy? The status of our emerging field. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), 1-9.
25.
RipA. (2006). Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, 15(4), 349-365.
26.
ScheufeleD. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13585-13592.
27.
ShannonC.WeaverW. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
28.
SteinerL.ChristiansC. (Eds.). (2010). Key concepts in critical cultural studies. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
29.
WynneB. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281-304.
30.
WynneB. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4), 321-337.
31.
WynneB. (2013). Rationality and ritual: Participation and exclusion in nuclear decision making. New York, NY: Routledge.
