Words and Figures of the Public: the Misunderstanding in Scientific Communication

Chapter

Abstract

With the development of museums and centres of scientific and technological culture, research on their audiences and on visitors to exhibitions have multiplied. Studies of audiences’ acceptance of science museums have long questioned the importance of prior scientific education, of the level of knowledge gained, of relative representations of a given subject, and of the visitor’s familiarity with a particular area of science. However, there has never been any questioning of levels of knowledge of social, institutional and media models of communication, although that knowledge is constantly used by visitors. Visitors continue to give credit to science museums for being able to put them in contact with scientific spaces, even when a large part of what is being displayed evokes a space of advertising rhetoric and media communication. At the heart of popularization discourses and public debates about science and the different forms that its media coverage can take, the authors notice the recurring mobilization of an argument, or rather of a figure: that of the audience. They briefly present the three main forms this mobilization can take, show that public debate can itself be represented as a figure of discourse, and then draw out all the possible consequences of these invocations of the audience and question their meaning.

Keywords

Debate and discourse on science figures of the public media museums popularization public television 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babou, I. (2004). Le cerveau vu par la télévision [The brain seen thorough television]. Paris: PUF, 198.Google Scholar
  2. Babou, I. & Le Marec, J. (2003). Science, musée et télévision: Discours sur le cerveau [Science, museum and television: A discourse on the brain]. Communication et Langages, 138, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boy, D. (1999). Le progrès en procès [Progress on trial]. Paris: Presses de la Renaissance.Google Scholar
  4. Boy, D. (2001). Les attitudes des Européens à l’égard de la science [Europeans’ attitudes in regard to science]. Report for the European Opinion Research Group, INRA, Direction Générale de la Recherche, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Boy, D., de Cheveigné, S. & Galloux, J.-C. (2002). Les biotechnologies en débat [Biotechnologies debated]. Paris: Balland.Google Scholar
  6. de Cheveigné, S. (2005). Le discours des médias sur le thème de l’environnement [Media discourse on the topic of the environment]. In M.-C. Smouts (Ed.), Le développement durable, valeurs et pratiques. Paris: Dalloz/Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  7. Donnat, O. (1998). Pratiques culturelles des Français Enquête 1997 [Cultural practices of the French Survey 1997]. Paris: La documentation Française.Google Scholar
  8. Donnat, O. (Ed.) (2003). Regards croisés sur les pratiques culturelles [Mixed views on cultural practices]. Paris: La documentation Française.Google Scholar
  9. Europeans, Science and Technology, 224 Special Eurobarometer, 63.1 (2005, June). Retrieved 29 October 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf.
  10. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir [Discipline and punish]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  11. Fouquier, E. & Véron, E. (1985). Les spectacles scientifiques télévisés—Figures de la production et de la réception [Televised science shows—figures of production and reception]. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  12. Le Marec, J. (2005). La relation entre l’institution muséale et les publics: Confrontation de modèle [The relation between the museal institution and the public: Confrontation of models]. In Musées, connaissance et développement des publics [Museums, knowledge and development of audiences]. Paris: Ministry of Culture and Communication, 103–121.Google Scholar
  13. Le Marec, J. (2006). Public, inscription, écriture [Public, inscription, writing], Sciences de la société, 67, 145–161.Google Scholar
  14. Le Marec, J. & Babou, I. (2004). La génétique au musée: Figures et figurants du débat public [Genetics in the museum: Figures and extras of the public debate]. Recherches en Communication, 20. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses de l’Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  15. Royal Society (2006). Science communication: A survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Retrieved 29 October 2007 from http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id = 3074.
  16. Schiele, B. (2005). Publiciser la science! Pour quoi faire? [Publicizing science! Why do it?]. In I. Paillart (Ed.), La publicisation de la science: Exposer, communiquer, débattre, publier, vulgariser. Grenoble: PUG.Google Scholar
  17. Veron, E. & Fouquier, E. (1985). Les spectacles scientifiques télévisés [Televised scientific programmes]. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  18. Veron, E. & Levasseur, M. (1983). Ethnographie d’une exposition [Ethnography of an exhibit]. Paris: Georges Pompidou Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire ‘Communication, Culture et Société’Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences HumainesLyon cedex 07France

Personalised recommendations