Advertisement

Kritische Beobachtungen zur Geschichte der Wissenschaftskommunikation

  • Martin W. BauerEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Es gibt kaum eine Historiographie der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, anhand von fünf thematischen Feldern zu erarbeiten, was als Grundlage für eine Historiographie der Wissenschaftskommunikation dienen kann. Ich erhebe weder Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit noch auf eine erschöpfende Literaturübersicht. Vielmehr soll hier der Versuch unternommen werden, programmatisch fünf Themen anzudeuten, die eine künftige Geschichte der WK beachten könnte: (1) Wissenschaftskommunikation im Rahmen der Wissenschaftsgeschichte; (2) die Professionalisierung der Wissenschaftskommunikation; (3) eine Ideen- und Modellgeschichte der Kommunikation von Wissenschaft; (4) die Entwicklung der Kommunikationsgenres, und (5) die Periodisierung vor und nach dem angeblichen Neuanfang in den 1980er Jahren. Forschungsstrategisch geht es dabei um nichts Geringeres, als die Praxis der Kommunikation dahingehend abzubilden, dass wir uns auf einem Kontinuum zwischen „Dienst an der diskursiven Vernunft“ oder „Handeln mit symbolischer Gewalt“ verorten können, um damit schließlich die aufklärende Diskussion anzuregen.

Schlüsselwörter

Geschichte der Wissenschaftskommunkation Professionalisierung Modelle der Kommunikation Genres Periodisierung longue duree 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Empfohlene Literatur

  1. Bauer MW (2012) Public attention to science 1820-2010 – a ‘longue duree’ picture, in: Rödder, S., Franzen, M. and P. Weingart (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28, Dordrecht: Springer, chapter 3, pp35-58.Google Scholar
  2. Bensaude-Vincent B (2001) A geneology of the increasing gap between science and the public, Public Understanding of Science, 10,1 99-113.Google Scholar
  3. Gregory J and S Miller (1998) Science in Public. Communication, culture, and credibility, Cambridge MA, Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Hilgartner S 1990. ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.’ Social Studies of Science 20: 519–39.Google Scholar
  5. Thorpe C & J Gregory (2010): Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science, Science as Culture, 19:3, 273-301.Google Scholar
  6. Trench B & M Bucchi et al. (2014) Global Spread of Science Communication: institutions and practices across continents, in: Bucchi M and B Trends (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, London, Routledge, pp214-245.Google Scholar

Literatur

  1. Aunger R (2000) (ed) Darwinizing Culture – the status of memetics as a science, Oxford, OUP.Google Scholar
  2. Ausejo E (1994) The window case of science: the associations for the advancement of science and the birth of scientific congresses in Western Europe, Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 44(133), 338-371.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer MW (2015) Atoms, Bytes & Genes – Public Resistance and Techno-Scientific Responses, New York, Routledge [Routledge Advances in Sociology 126]Google Scholar
  4. Bauer MW and B Falade (2014) Public understanding of science: survey research around the world, in: M Bucchi and B Trench (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, NY, Routledge, pp140-159.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer MW (2013) The knowledge society favours science communication, but puts science journalism into a clinch, in: Baranger P and B Schiele (eds) Science Communication Today, Paris, CNRS, 145-166.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer MW (2012) Public attention to science 1820-2010 – a ‘longue duree’ picture, in: Rödder, S., Franzen, M. and P. Weingart (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28, Dordrecht: Springer, chapter 3, pp35-58. [ISBN 978-007-2084-8]Google Scholar
  7. Bauer MW, S Howard, J Romo, L Massarani & L Amorin (2012) Science Journalism Across the World – working conditions, practices, professional ethos and future expectations, A report for SciDev.Net, London, LSE & SciDev.Net, August (126pp) http://www.scidev.net/en/content/our-learning-series/#X346620B030F0470C9BD5FB18DC433272
  8. Bauer MW and VP Glaveanu (2011) Communication as rhetoric and argumentation, in: Hook DW, B Franks & MW Bauer (2011) (eds) The Social Psychology of Communication, London, Palgrave, p209-228.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer MW and G Gaskell (2008) Social representations theory: a progressive research programme for Social Psychology, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 4, 335-354.Google Scholar
  10. Bauer MW & J Gregory (2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain, in: Bauer MW & M Bucchi (ed) Science, Journalism and Society: Science Communication Between News and Public Relations, London, Routledge, pp33-52.Google Scholar
  11. Bell A and J Turney (2014) Popular science books: from public education to science bestsellers, in: M Bucchi and B Trench (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, NY, Routledge, pp15-26.Google Scholar
  12. Bensaude-Vincent B (2001) A geneology of the increasing gap between science and the public, Public Understanding of Science, 10,1 99-113.Google Scholar
  13. Biagioli M (1999) Galileo, der Hofling: Entdeckungen und Etikette: Vom Aufstieg der neuen Wissenschaft. Frankfurt, S Fischer Verlang.Google Scholar
  14. Block E (1989) TH Huxley’s rhetoric and the popularization of Victorian scientific ideas, in: Brantlinger P (Ed) Energy & Entropy – Science and culure in Victorian Britain, Bloomington, Indiana UP, pp205-228.Google Scholar
  15. Blumenberg, H (1979) Arbeit am Mythos, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  16. Bongo G and G Caliendo (eds) (2014) The language of popularization, Bern, Peter LangGoogle Scholar
  17. Bucchi M (2002) Science in Society – an introduction to social studies of science, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Burnham J (1987) How superstition won and science lost: popularizing science and health in the US, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Caldwell M (2000) The Tipping Point – how little things can make a big difference, London, Abacus.Google Scholar
  20. Caro P (1993) La roue des sciences, Paris, Albin MichelGoogle Scholar
  21. Caro P (1994) Les procedes litteraires du recit dans la vulgarisation scientifique ecrite et televise, Colloque Quand la science se fait culture, Montreal, Quebec, 10-13 April.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, H. F. (1994) The scientific revolution – a historiographical enquiry, Chicago, CUP.Google Scholar
  23. Cooter, R and S Pumprey (1994) Separate spheres and public places: reflections on the history of science popularisation and science in popular culture, History of Science, 32, 3/97, 237-267.Google Scholar
  24. Daum A (2002) Wissenschaftpopularisierung im 19th Jahrh. Burgerliche Kultur, naturwissenschaftliche Building and die deutsche Oeffentlichkeit, 1948-1914, Munchen, Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  25. Dasgupta P and PA David (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.Google Scholar
  26. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process, Risk Analysis, 15, 2, 137-45.Google Scholar
  27. Fleck L (1980 / 1936) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp Wissenschaft 312 [Orginal, Basel 1935].Google Scholar
  28. Feyerabend P (2009) Naturphilosophie, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  29. Feyerabend P (1986) Wider den Methodenzwang, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Frickel S and N Gross (2005) A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements, American Sociological Review, 70, 204-232.Google Scholar
  31. Freire P (2005) Extension or communication, in: Education for critical consciousness, London & New York, Continuum, pp 87-146 [original 1968]Google Scholar
  32. Fuller S (2010) Science – the art of living, Durham, Acumen.Google Scholar
  33. Fuller W (2014) Customised science as a reflection of Protscience, in: Fuller S, M Stenmark and U Zackariassan (eds) The customization of science – the impact of religious and political worldviews on contemporary science, London, Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Goepfert W (2007) the strength of PR and the weakness of W-Jouralismus, in: MW Bauer & M Bucchi (eds) Journalism, Science and Society – science communication between News and Public Relations, NY, Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Glausiusz J (2013) The word on popular science, NATURE, 18 April, Vol 496, p299.Google Scholar
  36. Guyon JB (forthcoming) The history of natural science documentaries: a review, Public Understanding of science,Google Scholar
  37. Gregory J and S Miller (1998) Science in Public. Communication, culture, and credibility, Cambridge MA, Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Gregory J (2005) Fred Hoyle’s Universe, Oxford, OUP.Google Scholar
  39. Gregory J (2003) Popularisation und Excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘life from space’ Theory, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 25-46.Google Scholar
  40. Gregory J and SJ Lock (2008) The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: public engagement as a tool for science policy in the UK, Social Compass, 2, 4, 1252-1265.Google Scholar
  41. Gregory J (2011) Science communication in: Hook DW, B Franks & MW Bauer (2011) (eds) The Social Psychology of Communication, London, Palgrave, p300-315.Google Scholar
  42. Gross AG (1994) The role of rhetoric in the public understanding of science, Public Understanding of science, 3, 3-24.Google Scholar
  43. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists, American Sociological Review, 48, 781-95.Google Scholar
  44. Habermas J (2001) Kommunikatives Handeln und detranszendentalisierte Vernunft, Stuttgart, Reclam.Google Scholar
  45. Habermas J (1962) Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. House of Lords (2000) Science and Society (London: HMSO)Google Scholar
  47. Hilgartner, Stephen 1990. ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.’ Social Studies of Science 20: 519–39.Google Scholar
  48. Heuermann H (2000) Wissenschaftskritik – Konzepte, Positionen, Probleme, Tubingen, Franke VerlagGoogle Scholar
  49. House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Science and Society. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  50. Hornig Priest, S. (2010) (ed) Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication, 2 Volumnes, Los Angeles, SAGE reference (1095pp).Google Scholar
  51. Hughes J (2007) Insects or neutrons? Science news values in interwar Britain, in: Bauer MW and M Bucchi (eds) Journalism, Science and Society – Science communication between news and public relations, NY, Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Iliffe R (2014) Stereotypes: Self and Other in early modern English Science, paper presented at the workshop ‘Stereotyping in Early Modern British Public Spheres: History as Fieldwork’, Senate House London, 16/17 June 2014 (organised by Y Yamamoto & V Glaveneau)Google Scholar
  53. Jacques J and D Raichvarg (1991) Savants et ignorants: une histoire de la vulgarisation des sciences, Paris, Seuil.Google Scholar
  54. Jacobi D and B Schiele (1993) Science in magazines, and its readers, Public Understanding of Science, 2, 1, 3-20.Google Scholar
  55. Jenkins, E. W. (2009). Reforming school science: a commentary on selected reports and policy documents, Studies in Science Education vol 45, no 1 65-92Google Scholar
  56. Jurdant B (1969) Vulgarisation scientifique et ideologie, Communication, 14, 160-161.Google Scholar
  57. Jurdant B (1993) Popularisation of science as the autobiography of science, Public Understanding of Science, 2, 365-373Google Scholar
  58. Jurdant B (2013) Les problemes theorique de la vulgarisation scientifique, Paris, Edition des achives contemporaines [Wiederveroeffentlichung von 1974]Google Scholar
  59. Kaeser E (2009) Pop science: essays zur Wissenschaftskultur, Basel, Schwabe.Google Scholar
  60. Kaeser E (2013) Science kitsch and pop science: a reconnaissance, Public Understanding of Science, 22, 5, 559-569.Google Scholar
  61. Kevles DJ (1985) In the name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, NY, Knopf.Google Scholar
  62. Knight D (2006) The public understanding of science – A history of communicating scientific ideas, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Knight D (2009) The making of modern Science – Science, Technology and Medicine and Modernity, 1789-1914, Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kohring M (2006) Wissenschaftsjournalismus – Forschungsueberblick und Theorieentwurf, UKV Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  65. Kohring M (2012) the underestimated public: comment on Lehmkuhl et al. (2012), scheduling science on television, Public Understanding of Science, 21, 8, 1019-1022.Google Scholar
  66. Krimsky S (2004) Science in the Private Interest – has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham, MY, Rowman&Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Kronick DA (1962) A history of scientific and technical periodicals. The origins and development of the scientific and technological press, 1665-1790, NY, Scarecrow Press Inc.Google Scholar
  68. LaFollette MC (2008) Science on the Air – Popularizers and personalities on radio and early TV, Chicago, CUP.Google Scholar
  69. Latour B and P Weibel (2002) Iconoclash – beyond the image wars in science, religion and arts, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Lehmkuhl M, C Karamanidou, T Mora, Kristina Petkova, and B Trench (2012) Scheduling Science on TV: a comparative analysis of the representations of science in 11 European countries. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 8, 1002-1018.Google Scholar
  71. Lewenstein B (1992) The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II, Public Understanding of Science, 1, 46-68.Google Scholar
  72. Lewenstein B (1992) Industrial life insurance, public health campaigns, and public communication of science, 1908-1951, Public Understanding of Science, 1, 4, 347-365.Google Scholar
  73. Lezuan, J and L Soneryd (2007) Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics, Public Understanding of Science 16: 279–297.Google Scholar
  74. Luckmann T (1995) Der kommunkative Aufbau der sozialen Welt und die Sozialwissenschaften, Annali di Sociologia / Soziologisches Jahrbuch, 11, I-II, 45-98.Google Scholar
  75. Luhmann N (1989) Vertrauen – Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexitaet, 3. Durchgesehene Auflage, Stuttgart, Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. Massarani L, C Aguirre, C Pedersoli, E Raynoso and LM Lindegaard (2015) RedPOP: 25 years of a science communication network in Latin America, Journal of Science Communication, 14, 3, 1-9.Google Scholar
  77. Merton RK (1936) The unintended consequences of purposive social action, American Sociological Review, 1, 6, 894-904.Google Scholar
  78. Mellor F (2013) Twenty years of teaching science communication: a case study of Imperial College’s Master Programme, Public Understanding of Science, 22, 8, 916-926.Google Scholar
  79. Meyer M (2008) Principia Rhetorica, Paris, FayardGoogle Scholar
  80. Milburn C (2002) Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engeineering: science fiction as science, Configurations, 10, 261-295.Google Scholar
  81. Moles A et Jean Oulif (1967) Le troisième homme – Vulgarisation scientifique et radio, Diogène, 58, 29-40.Google Scholar
  82. Myers G (1989) 19th century Popularization of thermodynamics and the rhetoric of prophecy, in: Brantlinger P (Ed) Energy & Entropy – Science and culure in Victorian Britain, Bloomington, Indiana UP, pp307-338.Google Scholar
  83. Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scentific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1):3–17.Google Scholar
  84. Neidhardt F (1993) The public as communication system, Public Understanding of Science, 2, 339-350.Google Scholar
  85. Osborn J and J Dillon (2008) (eds) Science Education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  86. Roberts A (2005) The history of science fiction, London, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  87. Papanelopoulou, F, A Nieto-Galan, and E Perdiguero (eds) (2009) Popularizing Science and Technology in the European Periphery, 1800–2000, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  88. Price DJ de Solla (1963) Little science, big science, NY, Columbia UP.Google Scholar
  89. Reddy M (1979) The conduit metaphor, in: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition, Cambridge, CUP, pp164-201.Google Scholar
  90. Reichvarg D (1993) Science et spectacle. Figure d’une rencontre, Nice, Z’Edition.Google Scholar
  91. Rödder, S., Franzen, M. and P. Weingart (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of Innovation, 1st edition, NY, Free Press.Google Scholar
  93. Rohrbach D (2007) The development of knowledge societies in 19 OECD countries between 1970 and 2002, Social Science Information, Vol 46(4), pp. 655–689.Google Scholar
  94. Ross S (1962) Scientist: the story of a word, Annals of Science, 18, 2, 65-85.Google Scholar
  95. Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  96. Sahoo S (2009) The emergence of modern science and the national movement in India, Science and Culture, Nov-Dec, 394-398.Google Scholar
  97. Seymore-Ure C (1991) The British press and broadcasting since 1945, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  98. Shapin S (2010) The scientific life – a morel history of late a modern vocation, Chicago, CUP.Google Scholar
  99. Schiele B (2001) Le muse de sciences – montee du modele communicationnel eet recomposition du champ muesal, Paris, L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  100. Schiele B (2012) Suggesting cultural indicators derived from Exhibitory Science, in: Bauer MW, R Shukla, and Nick Allum (eds) The culture of science – how the public relates to science across the globe, NY, Routledge, pp385-399.Google Scholar
  101. Shannon C E and W Weaver (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press [original Bell System Technology Journal, 27, 1948, 379ff and 623ff.Google Scholar
  102. Sheets-Pyenson, S (1985) Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: the emergence of low scientific culture 1820-1875, Annals of Science, 42, 549-572Google Scholar
  103. Shinn T and T Whitley (eds) (1985) Expository Science: forms and functions of popularization, Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  104. Sammut G and MW Bauer (2011) Social Influence: modes and modalities, in: Hook D, B Franks and MW Bauer (eds) The Social Psychology of Communication, London, Palgrave, pp87-106.Google Scholar
  105. Sorokin (1985 [1957]) Social and Cultural dynamics – a study of change in major system of art, truth, ethics, law and social relations, New Brunswick, Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  106. Stowasser JM, M Peschenig und F Skutsch (1994) Stowasser Lateinisch-Deutsches Worterbuch, Wien, Verlag Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
  107. Stone L (1969) Literacy and education in England, 1640-1900, Past and Present, 42, 69-139.Google Scholar
  108. Taylor, C. (2010). Science in the news: A diachronic perspective. Corpora, 5, 221-250.Google Scholar
  109. Thorpe C & J Gregory (2010): Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science, Science as Culture, 19:3, 273-301Google Scholar
  110. Turner FM (1988) The Victorian conflict between science and religion: a professional dimension, in: Parsons G (ed) Religion in Victorian Britain, Vol4: Interpretations, Manchester, MUP, pp170-198.Google Scholar
  111. Trench B and M Bucchi et al. (2014) Global Spread of Science Communication: institutions and practices across continents, in: Bucchi M and B Trends (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, London, Routledge, pp214-245.Google Scholar
  112. Trench B (2008) Internet: turning science communication inside-out, in: Bucchi M and B Trends (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2st edition, London, Routledge, pp185-198.Google Scholar
  113. Turney J (2007) the latest boom in popular science books, in: Bauer MW and M Bucchi (eds) Journalism, Science and Society – Science communication between news and public relations, NY, Routledge, 81-91.Google Scholar
  114. Valente TW and EM Rogers (1995) The origins and development of the diffusion of innovation paradigm as an example of scientific growth, Science Communication, 156, 3, 242-273.Google Scholar
  115. Vogt C (2012) The spiral of scientific culture and cultural well-being: Brazil and Ibero-America, Public Understanding of Science, 21, 1, 4-16.Google Scholar
  116. Walsh L 2013) Scientists as Prophets – a rhetorical genealogy, Oxford, OUP.Google Scholar
  117. Walsh L (2015) The double edged sword of popularisation: the role of science communication research and the Popsci.com shutoff, Science Communication, 37, 5, 658-669.Google Scholar
  118. Wagner S (1985) Die Entwicklung der exakten Naturwissenschaften von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Eine Quantifizierung ihrer Geschicte, Band 1 und 2, Bielefeld, Science Studies Report 27.Google Scholar
  119. Weingart P (1988) Rasse, Blut und Gene – Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp [Reihe Wissenschaft no 1022]Google Scholar
  120. Weingart P (1998) Science and the media, Research Policy, 27, 869-879.Google Scholar
  121. Werskey PG (1971) British Scientists and ‘outsider’ politics, Science Studies, 67-83.Google Scholar
  122. Wiseman R (2007) Ancient Roman metaphors for communication, Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1, 41-78.Google Scholar
  123. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science, Public Understanding of science, 1, 3, 281-304.Google Scholar
  124. Wu G and H Qiu (2013) Popular science publishing in contemporary China, Public Understanding of Science, 22, 5, 521-529.Google Scholar
  125. Ziman J (1984) In introduction to science studies – the philosophical and social aspects of science and technology, Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LondonGroßbritannien

Personalised recommendations