Science for All: Guides to Overcome the Challenges of Science Communication in Cases of Health Communication
Abstract This study explores the science communication models of deficit and dialogue and their results in prior research. The theoretical framework presented in this study informs the overall study´s methodology with suggestions for participatory action research studies in the practice and research of science communication. Consequently, this study applied qualitative research and participatory action research methodologies, along with decolonial epistemological foundations. Consequently, the co-design of science communication strategies was applied in two health programs, one for children (United States), and another for teenagers (Ecuador). For data analysis, the study used the following theories: two-step theory, framing theory and medium theory. These were combined to interpret the data. The overall participatory co-design contributed to: a) facilitate the dialogue between researchers and their audiences; and b) create communication strategies adapted to audiences to propose scientific communication guides for health. The results demonstrate the importance of the involvement of researchers as spokespersons of their studies; several criteria for the design of messages for non-experts; and communication media selection criterion.
- Referencias
- Cómo citar
- Del mismo autor
- Métricas
Abbott, E., Corbin, L., & Neibergall, J. (2000). Computer adoption levels of Iowa dailies and weeklies. Newspaper Research Journal, 21(2), 84-94.
Andrade, S., Lachat, C., Ochoa-Aviles, A., Verstraeten, R., Huybregts, L., Roberfroid, D., & Cardon, G. (2014). A school-based intervention improves physical fitness in Ecuadorian adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 153-170.
Arroyave, J. (2006, June). The emergence of diffusion theory in Latin America: A critical analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany: International Communication Association.
Beltrán, S. (1976). Investigación en comunicación en Latinoamérica: Indagación con anteojeras]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Scientific Conference on Mass Communication and Social Consciousness in a Changing World. Leipzig, Germany.
Bordenave, J. D. (1976). Communication of agricultural innovations in Latin America: The need for new models. Communication Research, 3(2), 135-154.
Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41.
Bowater, L., & Yeoman, K. (2013). Science communication: A practical guide for scientists. London, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., ... & Jandciu, E. W. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations, and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PloS One, 11(10), e0162680.
Cooper, C. (2016). Citizen science: How ordinary people are changing the face of discovery. London, UK: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Chapin, M., & Threlkeld, B. (2001). Indigenous landscapes. A Study in Ethnocartography. Arlington, VA: Center for the Support of Native Lands.
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge.
Crawford, C. B., & Strohkirch, C. S. (2002). Leadership education for knowledge organizations: A primer. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 18-33.
Da Cruz, C. G. (2018). Community-engaged scholarship: Toward a shared understanding of practice. The Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 147-167.
Dupagne, M. (1999). Exploring the characteristics of potential high-definition television adopters. Journal of Media Economics, 12(1), 35-50.
Dunwoody, S. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 43-55). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dutton, W. H., Rogers, E. M., & Jun, S. H. (1987). Diffusion and social impacts of personal computers. Communication Research, 14(2), 219-250.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldire.
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Plenum.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339.
Guzzetti, B. J., & Gamboa, M. (2004). Zines for social justice: Adolescent girls writing on their own. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 408-436.
Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
Holliman, R., Collins, T., Jensen, E., & Taylor, P. (2009). ISOTOPE: Informing science outreach and public engagement. Final report of the NESTA-funded ISOTOPE project. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2009). Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement (pp. 55-71). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78
Kesby, M. (2000). Participatory diagramming: Deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area, 32(4), 423-435.
Leach, J., Yates, S., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Models of science communication. In Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age (pp. 128-146). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liang, X., Su, L. Y.F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., & Corley, E. A. (2014). Building buzz: Scientists communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772-791.
Listerman, T. (2010). Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: International comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 5-15.
Lin, C. A. (1998). Exploring personal computer adoption dynamics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 95-112.
Massarani, L., Reynoso-Haynes, E., Murriello, S., & Castillo, A. (2016). Posgrado en comunicación de la Ciencia en América Latina: Un mapa y algunas reflexiones. [Science Communication Postgraduate Studies in Latin America: A map and some food for thought]. JCOM, 15(05), A03.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martín-Barbero, J (1993). Communication, culture, and hegemony: From the media to mediations. London, UK: Sage.
McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research. London, UK: Sage.
Meyrowitz, J. (2009). Medium theory. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 50-77). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 613-626.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.
Rocha, M., Massarani, L., & Pedersoli, C. (2017). La divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina: Términos, definiciones y campo académico. En L. Massarani, M. Rocha, C. Pedersoli, C. Almeida, L. Amorim, M. Cambre, A.C. Nepote, N. Rocha, J. Aguirre, J.C. Goncalvez, L. Cordioli & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Aproximaciones a la investigación en divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina a partir de sus artículos académicos (pp. 39-58). Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Fiocruz-COC.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science communication, 23(2), 164-193.
White, J. M. (2013). Translating science, health and technology: Reporters as knowledge transfer intermediaries. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 3(2), 227.
Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 100-114.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andrade, S., Lachat, C., Ochoa-Aviles, A., Verstraeten, R., Huybregts, L., Roberfroid, D., & Cardon, G. (2014). A school-based intervention improves physical fitness in Ecuadorian adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 153-170.
Arroyave, J. (2006, June). The emergence of diffusion theory in Latin America: A critical analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany: International Communication Association.
Beltrán, S. (1976). Investigación en comunicación en Latinoamérica: Indagación con anteojeras]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Scientific Conference on Mass Communication and Social Consciousness in a Changing World. Leipzig, Germany.
Bordenave, J. D. (1976). Communication of agricultural innovations in Latin America: The need for new models. Communication Research, 3(2), 135-154.
Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41.
Bowater, L., & Yeoman, K. (2013). Science communication: A practical guide for scientists. London, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., ... & Jandciu, E. W. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations, and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PloS One, 11(10), e0162680.
Cooper, C. (2016). Citizen science: How ordinary people are changing the face of discovery. London, UK: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Chapin, M., & Threlkeld, B. (2001). Indigenous landscapes. A Study in Ethnocartography. Arlington, VA: Center for the Support of Native Lands.
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge.
Crawford, C. B., & Strohkirch, C. S. (2002). Leadership education for knowledge organizations: A primer. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 18-33.
Da Cruz, C. G. (2018). Community-engaged scholarship: Toward a shared understanding of practice. The Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 147-167.
Dupagne, M. (1999). Exploring the characteristics of potential high-definition television adopters. Journal of Media Economics, 12(1), 35-50.
Dunwoody, S. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 43-55). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dutton, W. H., Rogers, E. M., & Jun, S. H. (1987). Diffusion and social impacts of personal computers. Communication Research, 14(2), 219-250.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldire.
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Plenum.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339.
Guzzetti, B. J., & Gamboa, M. (2004). Zines for social justice: Adolescent girls writing on their own. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 408-436.
Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
Holliman, R., Collins, T., Jensen, E., & Taylor, P. (2009). ISOTOPE: Informing science outreach and public engagement. Final report of the NESTA-funded ISOTOPE project. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2009). Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement (pp. 55-71). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78
Kesby, M. (2000). Participatory diagramming: Deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area, 32(4), 423-435.
Leach, J., Yates, S., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Models of science communication. In Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age (pp. 128-146). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liang, X., Su, L. Y.F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., & Corley, E. A. (2014). Building buzz: Scientists communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772-791.
Listerman, T. (2010). Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: International comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 5-15.
Lin, C. A. (1998). Exploring personal computer adoption dynamics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 95-112.
Massarani, L., Reynoso-Haynes, E., Murriello, S., & Castillo, A. (2016). Posgrado en comunicación de la Ciencia en América Latina: Un mapa y algunas reflexiones. [Science Communication Postgraduate Studies in Latin America: A map and some food for thought]. JCOM, 15(05), A03.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martín-Barbero, J (1993). Communication, culture, and hegemony: From the media to mediations. London, UK: Sage.
McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research. London, UK: Sage.
Meyrowitz, J. (2009). Medium theory. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 50-77). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 613-626.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.
Rocha, M., Massarani, L., & Pedersoli, C. (2017). La divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina: Términos, definiciones y campo académico. En L. Massarani, M. Rocha, C. Pedersoli, C. Almeida, L. Amorim, M. Cambre, A.C. Nepote, N. Rocha, J. Aguirre, J.C. Goncalvez, L. Cordioli & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Aproximaciones a la investigación en divulgación de la ciencia en América Latina a partir de sus artículos académicos (pp. 39-58). Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Fiocruz-COC.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science communication, 23(2), 164-193.
White, J. M. (2013). Translating science, health and technology: Reporters as knowledge transfer intermediaries. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 3(2), 227.
Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 100-114.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vásquez-Guevara, D. H. (2021). Science for All: Guides to Overcome the Challenges of Science Communication in Cases of Health Communication. Fonseca, Journal of Communication, (22). https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc-v22-22148
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
+
−