Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The public communication of science and technology has become increasingly important over the last several decades. However, understanding the audience that receives this information remains the weak link in the science communication process. This essay provides a brief review of some of the issues involved, discusses results from an audience-based study, and suggests some strategies that both scientists and journalists can use to modify media coverage in ways that can help audiences better understand major public issues that involve science and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prewitt, K. (1982) The public and science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7(39): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lane, N. (1999) The scientist as global citizen. Paper prepared for the World Conference on Science, Budapest, Hungary, 26 June 1999.

  3. Suplee, C. (1999). Comments at meeting of the NASA Working Group, Research Roadmap on the Communication of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, June 1999.

  4. National Science Board. (2000) Science & Engineering Indicators 2000 (government document NSB-00-1), National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Survey Research Center. (1958) The public impact of science in the mass media: A report on a nation-wide survey for the National Association of Science Writers, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Scientists’ Institute for Public Information. (1993) Science News: What Does the Public Want? SIPIscope 20(2): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wynne, B. (1993) Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2(4): 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zinsser, W. (1994) On writing well (5th ed.), Harper Perennial, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crane, V. (1992) Listening to the audience: Producer-audience communication, in: Lewenstein, B.V. (ed.), When science meets the public, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Levy, M.R., Robinson, J.P., & Davis, D.K. (1986) News comprehension and the working journalist, in: Robinson, J.P. & Levy, M.R. (eds.) The main source: Learning from television news, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Journalism, University of Maryland, 20742-7111, College Park, MD, USA

    Carol L. Rogers Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Carol L. Rogers Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol L. Rogers Ph.D..

Additional information

Carol L. Rogers is editor of the interdisciplinary journal Science Communication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers, C.L. Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process. Sci Eng Ethics 6, 553–557 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0015-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0015-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation