Scenography of the Dialogue between Scientists and Publics: Towards the Actor-Network Theory of Media-Science Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.6.2642Keywords:
science and technology studies, STS, actor-network theory, science communication, public engagement with science, public understanding of scienceAbstract
This article examines dialogue in media-science communication through the lens of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), while considering key conceptualizations from science communication research. The authors encompass four areas: (1) the structure of science communication research discourse, particularly the transition from the deficit model to the dialogue model; (2) the extension of the dialogical turn to media projects and mapping of the heterogeneous field of media-science communication projects; (3) key conceptualizations of dialogue media projects as places, processes, and events in science communication literature; and (4) the problems within this tradition and potential solutions offered by ANT.
Drawing on ANT, the authors regard the dialogue between scientists and the interested publics in Russia using the case of the “Appetite for Science” project. The empirical findings reveal that Appetite project is cross-local, i.e. it is located, on the one hand, at the intersection of offline and online spaces, and on the other hand, at the junction of three relevant social worlds: media, science, and institutions supporting the project. The apparent “naturalness” of the dialogue between scientists and publics, observed at Appetite events, is an interactional and discursive effect of painstaking material staging, described in terms of figuration, i.e. the process of transforming abstract categories (science, scientist) into more concrete entities (topic, speaker). Figuration includes the articulation of speaker topics, formatting, and de-finition of the speaker’s competencies. In conclusion, the authors address the specificity of media-science communication and identify topics for further research.
References
Ляпугина Н. А. Контроверзы — искоренимое зло или неизбежное благо? Динамика отношений науки и общества в перспективе социального конструктивизма и акторно-сетевой теории // Социология власти. 2023. Т. 35. № 3. С. 8–56.
Lyapugina N. A. (2023) Are Public Controversies an Eradicable Evil or an Inevitable Good? Exploring the Dynamics of the Science-Society Relationship from a Social Constructivist and Actor-Network Perspective. Sociology of Power. Vol. 35. No 3. P. 8–56. (In Russ.)
Максимова А. Музей как школа новых технологий: современные интерактивные объекты и практики их пользователей // Сети города: Люди. Технологии. Власти / общ. ред. Е. Лапиной-Кратасюк, О. Запорожец, А. Возьянова. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2021. С. 309–334.
Maksimova A. (2021) The Museum as a School of New Technologies: Modern Interactive Objects and the Practices of Their Users. In: Lapina-Kratasiuk E., Zaporozhets O., Vozyanov A. (eds.) City Networks: People. Technologies. Authorities. Moscow: New Literary Observer. P. 309–334. (In Russ.)
Bucchi M. (2004) Science in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London & New York, NY: Routledge.
Bucchi M., Trench B. (2014) Science Communication Research: Themes and Challenges. In: Bucchi M., Trench B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition. London; New York, NY: Routledge. P. 1–14.
Callon M., Law J., Rip A. (eds.) (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, London: The Macmillan Press LTD.
Callon M. (1987) Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In: Bijker W. E., Hughes T. P., Pinch T. (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA.: MIT Press. P. 83–103.
Davies S., McCallie E., Simonsson E., Lehr J.L., Duensing S. (2009) Discussing Dialogue: Perspectives on the Value of Science Dialogue Events That Do Not Inform Policy. Public understanding of Science. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507079760.
Davies S. (2009) Doing Dialogue: Genre and Flexibility in Public Engagement with Science. Science as Culture. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430902870591.
Davies S. (2016) Participation as Pleasure: Citizenship and Science Communication. In: Chilvers J., Kearnes M. (eds.) Remaking Participation. Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London; New York, NY: Routledge. P. 162–177.
Davies S. (2018) Science Communication Is Not an End in Itself: (Dis)Assembling the Science Festival. International Journal of Science Education. Part B. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1540898.
Flick U. (2010) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Fourth Edition. London; New Delhi; Singapore, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. P. 318–323.
Goffman E. (1956) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Graham H. C. (2016) The «Co» in Co-production: Museums, Community Participation and Science and Technology Studies. Science Museum Group Journal. Vol. 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.15180/160502.
Gregory J., Lock S. J. (2008) The Evolution of “Public Understanding of Science”: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK. Sociology Compass. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00137.x.
Gregory J., Miller S. (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Trade.
Hilgartner S. (1990) The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006.
Horst M., Davies S., Irwin A. (2017) Chapter 30. Reframing Science Communication. In: Felt U., Fouché R., Miller C.A., Smith-Doerr L. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th edition. Cambridge: The MIT Press. P. 881–907.
Horst M., Michael M. (2011) On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-Thinking Science Communication as “Event”. Science as Culture. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2010.524199.
Horst M. (2011) Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 17. P. 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9306-y.
Irwin A., Wynne B. (1996) Conclusions. In: Irwin A., Wynne B. (eds.) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 213–221.
Jahnsen S. S. (2019) The Balancing Act. Museums as Spaces for Democratic Debate: A Case Study from Oslo, Norway. Museums & Social Issues. Vol. 14. No. 1-2. P. 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15596893.2021.1970901.
Latour B. (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour B. (1988) A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 3–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285375.
Latour B. (1992) Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In: Bijker W.E., Law J. (eds.) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P. 225–259.
Latour B., Mauguin P., Teil G. (1992) A Note on Socio-Technical Graphs. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 22. No 1. P. 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312792022001002.
Latour B. (2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour B., Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lehr J. L., McCallie E., Davies S.R., Caron B.R., Duensing S. (2007) The Value of “Dialogue Events” as Sites of Learning: An Exploration of Research and Evaluation Frameworks. International Journal of Science Education. Vol. 29. No. 12. P. 1467–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701494092.
Michael M. (1992) Lay Discourses of Science: Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399201700303.
Miller S. (2001) Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 115–120.
Nakamura M. (2010) STS in Japan in Light of the Science Café Movement. East Asian Science. Technology and Society: an International Journal. Vol. 4. P. 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-010-9122-5.
Nelkin D. (1995) Science Controversies: The Dynamics of Public Disputes in the United States. In: Jasanoff S., Markle G.E., Petersen J.C., Pinch T. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. P. 444–456.
Norton M., Nohara K. (2009) Science Cafés. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Educational Applications. Journal of Science Communication. Vol. 8. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08040201.
Smallman M. (2014) Public Understanding of Science in Turbulent Times III: Deficit to Dialogue, Champions to Critics. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514549141.
Stilgoe J., Lock S. J., Wilsdon J. (2014) Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science? Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154.
Trench B. (2006) Science Communication and Citizen Science: How Dead Is the Deficit Model? Scientific Culture and Global Citizenship, Ninth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST-9), Seoul, Korea, May 17-19, 2006.
Wynne B. (1992b) Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons or Hall of Mirrors? Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/008.
Wynne B. (1992a) Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 1. No. 3. P. 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004.
Wynne B. (2006) Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science — Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genomics. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659.
Wynne B. (2014) Further Disorientation in the Hall of Mirrors. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513505397.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
