At Science, discussion of framing continues...

By nisbetmc_2 on August 31, 2007.

i-f3b94d1616702832c3181c9bf4b88267-ScienceCover.gif

Science has published four letters in response to our framing article along with a fifth letter as our reply. Over at Framing Science, I have posted the text of the reply that I wrote to all four letters. Hopefully I will be able to get an author referral link in the near future so that readers can have access to the full text of the other letters.

In an upcoming issue of The Scientist magazine, I team up with Dietram Scheufele in contributing a feature article that elaborates on framing and its relevance to new directions in science communication. For the past couple of weeks, at its Web site, the magazine has been sponsoring a discussion on the topic and a Web poll of readers.

Over at Nanopublic, Scheufele has this blog post up about the letters. At the Intersection, Mooney has more.

Tags
Discussion

More like this

At Science, Four Letters on Framing and Our Reply
Science has published four letters in response to our framing article along with a fifth letter as our reply. As it turns out, I know two of the correspondents fairly well. Earle Holland, the author of the first letter, is assistant VP for Research Communications at The Ohio State University,…
At The Scientist, a Discussion about Framing
The Scientist is currently sponsoring an online discussion about framing and new directions in science communication. The web feature is in advance of an article I am contributing to the magazine, co-authored with Dietram Scheufele, a colleague at the University of Wisconsin. So far, more than 40…
At The Scientist, A Cover Feature on Framing
Appearing as the cover story for the October issue of The Scientist, I've teamed up with my colleague Dietram Scheufele to pen a 4,000 word feature that expands on the Framing Science thesis previously introduced in short articles at Science and the Washington Post. There's a great deal of context…
More on framing and media influence
Over at the blog Nanopublic, Dietram Scheufele, a professor of communication at the University of Wisconsin, has posted a very useful discussion of our Science Policy forum article. Scheufele, one of the most widely cited scholars on framing and the media, recently co-edited a special issue on…

You science article is a great introduction to something all scientists must start to consciously bring to the forefront. That is communicating science to the public and non scientists in a positive productive manner. Where science has gone wrong in the last 20-30 years is not reaching out to the general public. Not keeping them adequately informed. Certainly there are many reasons why the general publics knowledge of science has eroded but as a group we need to focus on the things we can control. Your framing idea is one of them. It has become easy for scientists to live out their lives in enclaves of research without ever having to communicate what they are doing to the public. It is this very isolation or separatism that is at the heart of the problem, drives the distrust of the public, and allows science to be used by the politicians. It only takes a couple glances at CNNs science section to make me question what the crazy scientist are up to or say our tax dollars are paying for what? I think you article is good place to start and scientists have to become better communicator or we will continue to be used and misunderstood.