Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 479–484 | Cite as

The difficulty of differentiating expertise and the functions of expert sources and the necessity of studying science education in the media

  • Joachim AllgaierEmail author


I start by introducing some ideas from the field of science and technology studies that concern the difficulty of differentiating experts and laypeople. Based on this description I react to Albæk’s comment and further explain the approach taken in my study. The results of the study indicate that the function of different types of sources can vary or overlap and that it is not always possible to unequivocally determine whether a source is represented as, for example, an expert, a representative of a particular worldview or institution, a citizen or more of the above. It is suggested that more research is needed on the issue how different types of journalists and specialist correspondents select and use their sources and how science education is represented in the media. The study of (science) education in the media is still a neglected issue and some of the benefits of getting a better understanding of the public representation of science education are pointed out.


Expertise Expert sources Journalistic practice Science education Media 


  1. Albæk, E. (2011). Does journalistic objectivity have more than one voice? Cultural Studies of Science Education.Google Scholar
  2. Allgaier, J. (2010a). Scientific experts and the controversy about teaching creation/evolution in the UK press. Science & Education, 19, 797–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allgaier, J. (2010b). Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK. Public Understanding of Science. Retrieved January, 31, 2011 from.
  4. Bryce, T. G. K. (2010). Sardonic science? The resistance to more humanistic forms of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Köcher, R. (1986). Bloodhounds or missionaries: Role definitions of German and British journalists. European Journal of Communication, 1, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leadbeater, C., & Miller, P. (2004). The pro-am revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  8. Limoges, C. (1993). Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Michael, M. (1996). Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 107–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael, M. (2006). Technoscience and everyday life. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Reiss, M. J. (1993). Science education for a pluralist society. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Reiss, M. (2011). Teachers as journalists? Cultural Studies of Science Education. Google Scholar
  13. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361–388). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? a reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity. Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Ethics in the Neurosciences (INM-8)Research Center JuelichJuelichGermany

Personalised recommendations