This study employed a content analysis approach to consider the coverage of nanotechnology reports in the New York Times from 1985 to 2004. Patterns and trends of discourse within the national newspaper in terms of political, economic, social, cultural and technological factors were examined using a socio-linguistic approach. Results from the analysis of 243 news articles show a significant rise in the number of reports in general, with a specific focus on political, economic and technological factors. Analysis revealed that the three categories not only increased in relation to the rise in the number of articles, but also tended to positively reinforce each other over time. The implications of these findings are significant in relation to how the media reports on nanotechnology and the social and cultural dimensions of technology during the critical start-up phases of the innovation. Furthermore, this study brings into focus the issues of transparency of risk and sustainability of future nanotechnology applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BauerM.W.GaskellG.2002, ‘Researching the Public Sphere of Biotechnology’, in BauerM.W.GaskellG. (eds), Biotechnology – The Making of a Global Controversy, Cambridge University Press, London.
2.
BhushanB.2010, ‘Introduction to Nanotechnology’, in BhushanB. (ed.), Handbook of Nanotechnology, 3rd edn, Springer, Heidelberg.
3.
BijkerW.1995, ‘Socio-historical Technology Studies’, in JasanoffS.MarkleG.E.PetersenJ.C.PinchT. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
DearingJ.W.RogersE.M.1996, Agenda-setting, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
6.
EinsiedelE.F.GoldenbergL.2004, ‘Dwarfing the Social: Lessons for Nanotechnology from the Biotechnology Front’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 28–33.
7.
EllulJ.1964, The Technological Society, Alfred A Knopf, New York.
8.
GaskellG.BauerM.DurantJ.1998, ‘The Representation of Biotechnology: Policy, Media and Public Perception’, in DurantJ.BauerM.GaskellG. (eds), Biotechnology in the Public Sphere, Science Museum, London.
9.
GrahamP.1999, ‘Critical Systems Theory: A Political Economy of Language, Thought, and Technology’, Communication Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 482–507.
10.
GuttelingJ.M.2005, ‘Mazur's Hypothesis on Technology and Controversy and Media’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23–41.
11.
GuttelingJ.M.OlofssonA.FjaestadR.2002, ‘Media Coverage 1973–1996: Trends and Dynamics’, in BauerW.M.GaskellG. (eds), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12.
JanoffS.2011, ‘Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology, Science Engineering Ethics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 621–38.
13.
KinsellaW.J.1993, ‘Communication and Information Technologies: A Dialectical Model of Technology and Human Agency’, The New Jersey Journal of Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11.
14.
LemkeJ.L.1995, Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics, Taylor & Francis, London.
15.
LenertE.2004, ‘A Social Shaping Perspective on the Development of the World Wide Web’, New Media & Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 235–58.
16.
LindquistE.PeckM.2005, ‘Big Problems, Small Solutions: Public Understanding of Nanotechnology’, presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
17.
MackayH.GillespieG.1992, ‘Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation’, Social Studies of Science, no. 22, pp. 685–716.
18.
MazurA.1981, ‘Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies’, Journal of Communication, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 106–15.
19.
McGrailS.2011, ‘Nano Dreams and Nightmares: Emerging Technoscience and the Framing and (re)Interpreting of the Future, Present and Past’, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 23–48.
20.
MekelM.2006, ‘Nanotechnologies: Small Science, Big Potential and Bigger Issues’, Development, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 47–53.
21.
OgburnW.F.1973, ‘The Hypothesis of Cultural Lag’, in Etzioni-HalevyE.EtzioniA. (eds), Social Change: Sources, Patterns and Consequences, 2nd edn, Basic Books, New York.
22.
PriestS.H.EyckT.T.2004, ‘Peril or Promise: News Media Framing of the Biotechnology Debate in Europe and the US’, in StehrN. (ed.), Biotechnology: Between Commerce and Civil Society, Transaction, London.
23.
RammertW.2001, The Cultural Shaping of Technologies and the Politics of Techno-diversity, Working Paper, TUT-WP-1-2001, Technische Universitat Berlin, Berlin.
24.
ReinardJ.2001, Introduction to Communication Research, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
25.
RussellS.WilliamsR.2002, ‘Social Shaping Research and Technology Policy: Themes and Insights from Recent Work’, paper presented to European Symposium on Science, Technology and Society, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, June.
26.
SatterfieldT.KandlikarM.BeaudrieE.H.ContiJ.HawthornB.K.2009, ‘Anticipating the Perceived Risk of Nanotechnologies’, Nature of Nanotechnology, no. 4, pp. 752–8.
27.
TorgersenH.2002, ‘Promise, Problems and Proxies: Twenty-five Years of Debate and Regulation in Europe’, in BauerM.W.GaskellG. (eds), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, Cambridge University Press, London.
28.
ToumeyC.2012, ‘Lessons from Before and After Nanotechnology’, Nature of Nanotechnology, no. 7, pp. 611–12.
29.
Van EstR.2011, ‘The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science’, Science Engineering Ethics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 639–48.
30.
WeberI.2010, ‘Commodifying Digital Television in China: A Socio-linguistic Analysis of Media Discourse, Technology Deployment and Control’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 289–308.
31.
WilliamsR.EdgeD.1996, ‘The Social Shaping of Technology’, Research Policy, no. 25, pp. 856–99.
32.
WrightW.1992, Wild Knowledge: Science, Language and Social Life in a Fragile Environment, University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, MN.
