Ciencia para Todos: Guías para superar los Desafíos de la Comunicación Científica en Casos de Comunicación de la Salud

Barra lateral del artículo

PDF HTML XML ePUB

ISSN online: 2172-9077

Prefijo Doi: 10.14201

Contenido principal del artículo

Denisse Helena Vásquez-Guevara
Universidad de Cuenca
Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-1416
Biografía
Núm. 22 (2021), Artículos del monográfico
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc-v22-22148
Aceptado: abr 1, 2020
Derechos de autor Cómo citar

Resumen

Este estudio explora los modelos de comunicación científica desde los paradigmas del déficit y el diálogo y los resultados de su aplicación en investigación. El marco teórico de esta investigación, a su vez informa a la metodología mediante las sugerencias de varios autores orientadas a promover la participación de las audiencias. Por este motivo, este estudio aplicó la investigación-acción participativa, métodos cualitativos, epistemología decolonial, y un análisis que combina la teoría de los dos pasos, teoría del framing y teoría del médium. Esta metodología se aplicó en el co-diseño de estrategias comunicacionales en dos programas de salud, uno para niños (Estados Unidos) y otro para adolescentes (Ecuador), que promueven hábitos saludables.
 
El co-diseño de este proyecto: (a) facilitó el diálogo entre investigadores y sus audiencias; (b) permitió crear estrategias comunicacionales adaptadas a las audiencias; y (c) se propusieron guías de comunicación científica que evidencian la importancia del involucramiento de los investigadores como voceros del contenido científico, criterios de diseño de mensajes científicos para no-expertos, y criterios para la selección de canales comunicacionales.

Palabras clave:

Comunicación Científica, Comunicación de la Salud, Comunicación Estratégica

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Detalles del artículo

Citas

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.