Traditional models of the public communication of science and Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever in Iran (2017)

Zahra Ojagh, Seyedeh

Traditional models of the public communication of science and Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever in Iran (2017)

Document Type : Review Paper

Author

Seyedeh Zahra Ojagh

Assistant professor, Department of Cultural studies and Communication, Institute for Humanities and Culture Studies

Abstract

Media are the main actors in public communication of science (PCS) that they could change awareness, cognition, attitude, and behavior. Lewenstein (2003) described four common models of PCS which included Deficit model, Contextual model, Lay-public model, and Public participation model.
The main objective of the first two models is increasing the level of individual science literacy, and public understanding. The goal of the other two models is empowering public and local groups, i.e. they try to improve interaction between scientific knowledge and other types of the knowledge, and participation in order to offer solutions for issues and problems that science seeks to resolve them.
In the last two models, the issue of public understanding is related to social communications. None of these four models are superior to the other, and all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. So, according to the intention of PCS, it may apply one of the models. This paper describes attributes of the two first models by reviewing theoretical and experimental works, and puts forward an analysis for domination of deficit model on how to inform about Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever

Keywords

20.1001.1.22519033.1395.7.2.2.5

References

اجاق، س. ز. (1391). نفش مجلههای علمی عمومی ایرانی در افزایش فهم عامه از علم: مطالعه ترکیبی (1280 تا 1390). پایان‌نامه دکترا. دانشکده علوم اجتماعی. دانشگاه تهران.

ایزدی، ش. هلاکویی نایینی، ک. مجدزاده، س. ر. چینیکار، ص. رخشانی، ف. ندیم، ا. هوشمند، ب. (1382). شیوع عفونت تب خونریزی دهنده کنگو ـ کریمه در استان سیستان و بلوچستان: یک مطالعه سرولوژیک، فصلنامه پایش، سال 2، شماره 2، صص 93-85.

عبداللهیان، ح. اجاق، س. ز. (1392). فراخواندن مخاطبان از سوی متون علمی عمومی. مطالعات فرهنگ ـ ارتباطات، سال 14، شماره 24، صص، 7 تا 25.

قانعی راد، م.ا. مرشدی، ا. (1390). پیمایش فهم عمومی از علم و فناوری: مطالعه موردی شهروندان تهرانی. سیاست علم و فناوری، سال 3، شماره 3، صص 93 تا 110.

ماهر، ز. مدنیان، س. (1394). بررسی وضعیت درک عمومی از علم و فناوری در بین شهروندان مورد مطالعه: شهر اصفهان، اولین کنفرانس بین المللی علوم اجتماعی و جامعه شناسی.

Allum, N. P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, and I. Brunton-Smith (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis.Public Understanding of Science 17, pp. 35-54.

Bucci, M. (1996). Whwn scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication. Public understanding of science, 5 (1996). PP. 375-394.

Clarck, B. (2003), Report: Frames and scientists: a case study in facilitating communication, Science Communication, 25 (2), PP 198-203.

Irwin, A. (2008). Risk, science and public communication: thired-order thinking about scientific culture In: Handbook of Public communication of science and technology, By, Trench, B. Bucci, M. pp. 119-213.Routledge Publication.

Lewenstein, B. (2003), Models of public communication of science and technology, version 16, P. 1-11. Available at: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/ pluginfile.php/43775/mod_resource/content/1/Texto/Lewenstein%202003.pdf.

Logan, R.A. (2001). Science Mass Communication: Its conceptual history, Science Communication. 23 (2), PP. 63-135.

Neelima, B.N. Reddy, R.U. (2014). Environmental education through media, International Journal of Science and Research, 3(3). PP. 157- 159.

Nisbet, M. C. Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions, American Journal of Botany 96 (10), pp. 1767-1778.

Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17, pp. 90-112.

Scheufele, D. A., E. A. Corley, T.-J. Shih, K. E. Dalrymple, and S. S. Ho. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology 4, pp. 91- 94.

Secko, D.M. Amend, E. Friday, T. (2013). Four models of science journalism- A synthesis and practical assessment, Journalism Practice, 7 (1), PP. 62-80.

Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models, In: Communicating science in social contexts-new models, new practices, by: Donghong, C.; Claessens, M.; Gascoigne,T.; Metcalfe,J.; Schiele,B.; Shi, S.; pp. 119-135. Springer.

Withey, S. B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly 23, 382-388.