Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Awe is a valued emotion in science communication and assumes a variety of functions in relation to the cultural mandates of the various spaces where it is represented. Based on a reflexive thematic analysis of interviews with 22 science communication practitioners, we constructed seven themes referencing this emotion’s various sociocultural roles in this space. These included the functions of awe in entertainment, curiosity, admiration, revelation, and connection. Drawing from a constructionist view of emotions, we argue that these varieties of awe co-construct many of the differing, and sometimes conflicting, mandates that circulate in the culture of science communication.

Keywords

awe cultures of science communication thematic analysis interviews constructionist view of emotion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

(2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Routledge.

Anderson

C. L.

Monroy

Keltner

(2018). Awe in nature heals: Evidence from military veterans, at-risk youth, and college students. Emotion, 18(8), 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000442

Ball

(2013). Curiosity: How science became interested in everything. University of Chicago Press.

Barrett

L. F.

(2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00003.x

Barrett

L. F.

(2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Barrett

L. F.

Wilson-Mendenhall

C. D.

Barsalou

L. W.

(2014). The conceptual act theory: A road map. In Barrett

L. F.

Russell

J. A.

(Eds.), The psychological construction of emotion (pp. 83–110). Guilford Press.

Besley

J. C.

Newman

T. P.

Dudo

Tiffany

L. A.

(2020). Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520950671

Blue

(2019). Science communication is culture: Foregrounding ritual in the public communication of science. Science Communication, 41(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018816456

Boddice

(2020). History looks forward: Interdisciplinary and critical emotion research. Emotion Review, 12(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073920930786

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

11.

Broks

(2006). Understanding popular science. McGraw-Hill Education.

12.

Burke

(1990). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. Oxford University Press.

13.

Canfield

K. N.

Menezes

Matsuda

S. B.

Moore

Mosley Austin

A. N.

Dewsbury

B. M.

Feliú-Mójer

M. I.

McDuffie

K. W. B.

Moore

Reich

C. A.

Smith

H. M.

Taylor

(2020). Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00002

14.

Crogan

Kinsley

(2012). Paying attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1–29.

15.

Cronon

(1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, 1(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985059fmell

16.

Daston

Park

(1998). Wonders and the order of nature, 1150-1750. Zone Books.

17.

Davies

S. R.

(2019). Science communication as emotion work: Negotiating curiosity and wonder at a science festival. Science as Culture, 28(4), 538–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1597035

18.

Davies

S. R.

(2021). An empirical and conceptual note on science communication’s role in society. Science Communication, 43(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020971642

19.

Davies

S. R.

Horst

(2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Springer.

20.

Dawkins

(1998). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder. Houghton Mifflin.

21.

Einsiedel

(2008). Public engagement and dialogue: A research review. In Bucchi

Trench

(Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 173–184). Routledge.

22.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

23.

Gendron

Mesquita

Barrett

L. F.

(2020). The brain as a cultural artifact: Concepts, actions, and experiences within the human affective niche. In Kirmayer

L. J.

Worthman

C. M.

Kitayama

Lemelson

Cummings

(Eds.), Culture, mind, and brain (pp. 188–222). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108695374.010

24.

Gross

A. G.

(2018). The scientific sublime. Oxford University Press.

25.

Harding

J. M.

Pribram

E. D.

(2002). The power of feeling: Locating emotions in culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1364942002005004294

26.

Hellsten

Nerlich

(2008). Genetics and genomics: The politics and ethics of metaphorical framing. In Bucchi

Trench

(Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 93–109). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240-13

27.

Hilgartner

(1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006

28.

Humm

Schrögel

Leßmöllmann

(2020). Feeling left out: Underserved audiences in science communication. Media and Communication, 8(1), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2480

29.

Jahoda

(2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture.” Culture & Psychology, 18(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X12446229

30.

JiscMail. (n.d.). PSCI-COM home page. https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A0=PSCI-COM

31.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.

32.

Keltner

Haidt

(2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297

33.

Kessler

E. A.

(2012). Picturing the cosmos: Hubble space telescope images and the astronomical sublime. University of Minnesota Press.

34.

Kirby

(2015, January 25). Evangelizing the cosmos: Science documentaries and the dangers of wonder overload. The Science and Entertainment Laboratory. http://thescienceandentertainmentlab.com/evangelizing-the-cosmos/

35.

Kroeber

A. L.

Kluckhohn

(1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers. Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University, 47(1), viii, 223.

36.

Lessl

T. M.

(1989). The priestly voice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638909383871

37.

Lovelock

J. E.

Margulis

(1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, 26(1–2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v26i1-2.9731

38.

Lutz

C. A.

Abu-Lughod

(Eds.). (1990). Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge University Press.

39.

Medvecky

Leach

(2019). An ethics of science communication. Springer.

40.

Mellor

A. K.

(1993). Romanticism & gender. Routledge.

41.

Mesquita

Boiger

De Leersnyder

(2017). Doing emotions: The role of culture in everyday emotions. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 95–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1329107

42.

Metcalfe

(2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022

43.

Metcalfe

Gascoigne

(2004). The science communication professional in Australia [Conference session]. 8th PCST International Conference, Barcelona, Spain. https://pcst.co/archive/pdf/Metcalfe_Gascoigne_PCST2004.pdf

44.

Moore

K. D.

(2005). The truth of the barnacles: Rachel Carson and the moral significance of wonder. Environmental Ethics, 27(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200527316

45.

Nye

D. E.

(1994). American technological sublime. MIT Press.

46.

Oyserman

(2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033617

47.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

48.

Perrault

S. T.

(2013). Communicating popular science: From deficit to democracy. Springer.

49.

Priest

(2018). Communicating climate change and other evidence-based controversies: Challenges to ethics in practice. In Priest

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication (pp. 55–73). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226497952-006

50.

Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics [Computer software]. https://www.qualtrics.com

51.

Roberson

T. M.

(2020). Can hype be a force for good?: Inviting unexpected engagement with science and technology futures. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520923109

52.

Russ

(1975). Towards an aesthetic of science fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 2(2), 112–119. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4238932

53.

Sagan

(1997). Pale blue dot: A vision of the human future in space. Random House.

54.

Sideris

L. H.

(2017). Consecrating science: Wonder, knowledge, and the natural world. University of California Press.

55.

Silva Luna

Bering

J. M

. (2020). The construction of awe in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 30(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520963256

56.

Stellar

J. E.

Gordon

Anderson

C. L.

Piff

P. K.

McNeil

G. D.

Keltner

(2018). Awe and humility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000109

57.

Terry

Hayfield

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. In Willig

Stainton Rogers

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 17–36). SAGE.

58.

Treise

Weigold

M. F.

(2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300306

59.

Valdesolo

Shtulman

Baron

A. S.

(2017). Science is awe-some: The emotional antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review, 9(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916673212

60.

Vasalou

(2015). Wonder: A grammar. State University of New York Press.

61.

Watermeyer

Lewis

(2018). Institutionalizing public engagement through research in UK universities: Perceptions, predictions and paradoxes concerning the state of the art. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1612–1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1272566

62.

Williams

(2017). The nature fix: Why nature makes us happier, healthier, and more creative. W.W. Norton & Company.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Varieties of Awe in Science Communication: Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Practitioners’ Experiences and Uses of This Emotion

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material