Clare Wilkinson

The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press

This article investigates how developments in nanotechnology were framed in the British national newspaper press during a formative period in their rising public salience. Specifically, an intervention by Prince Charles in April 2003 is shown to have acted as the principal catalyst for much of the ensuing newspaper reporting over the next fifteen months. This study, in taking as its focus the operation of specific news frames, identifies a range of factors that shaped the initial terms of the subsequent debate (between both advocates and critics of nanotechnology) from one newspaper to the next during this period. The analysis suggests that the involvement of a celebrity may play a crucial role in enhancing the newsworthiness of an issue and influencing its subsequent framing in the newspaper press.

Opening the black box: scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate

Increasingly, scientists and policy makers have come to recognize that if nanotechnologies are to achieve wide public acceptance, it is essential to engage publics during the early phase of technology development. The media, situated at the interface between scientists and lay publics, possess the potential to play a significant role in public engagement in this field. This article, drawing on data from a recent survey and interview-based study, examines how scientists perceive and evaluate the production and coverage of news on nanotechnologies. Scientists acknowledged the significance of the media in shaping public perceptions of nanotechnologies and saw a role for the media in public engagement efforts. Most had criticisms of media coverage and offered suggestions as to how it could be improved. However, their comments often revealed a one-dimensional conception of science mediation that overlooked the influence of their own claims. Any efforts to enrich public dialogue about nanotechnologies must endeavor to advance understanding among scientists about the operations of the media and their own role in news production.

From uncertainty to risk?: Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety

Abstract This article examines how nanotechnology has been portrayed in the British newspaper press over an extended period (from April 1, 2003 to July 1, 2006) and the views of scientists involved in nanotechnology research and journalists who wrote news stories. Two methodological strategies are employed: first, recurring patterns in the press coverage were identified using content analysis. Second, scientists and journalists were questioned about their views of coverage and of how health risks were represented. The study revealed that for scientists the most prominent risk issue was nanoparticle safety, although this received only scant attention in the press. Scientists expressed particular concern that efforts be made to regulate pertinent applications before possible health risks become a controversial issue. Both scientists and journalists acknowledged the difficulties of communicating the concept of risk given the uncertainties of nanotechnologies. The implications of the findings for news reporting of nanotechnology risks are discussed.

“From the Heart of My Bottom”: Negotiating Humor in Focus Group Discussions:

Reporting and analyzing interactional data collected during focus groups can be a significant challenge for qualitative health researchers. In this article, the authors explore the use of humor among focus group participants as one area of interaction and negotiation that is methodologically interesting and theoretically insightful. They explore discussions about service user involvement in medical education across eight focus groups consisting of medical educators, medical students, and service users. The findings suggest that humor can be used among focus group participants to maintain solidarity, navigate coping strategies, and negotiate power. Not only is humor useful when exploring new concepts, it can also be an indication of wider views that might not be explicit in an analysis of focus group members’ comments alone. The authors urge qualitative health researchers to examine interactions among focus group participants, and their analysis of humor illustrates how this can be achieved.

Open science: a new "trust technology"?

The emerging practice of open science, which makes the entire process of a scientific investigation available, could extend membership of the research community to new, public audiences, who do not have access to science’s long-established trust mechanisms. This commentary considers if the structures that enable scientists to trust each other, and the public to trust scientists, are enriched by the open science approach. The completeness of information provided by open science, whether as a replacement for or complement to older systems for establishing trust within science, makes it a potentially useful “trust technology.”

‘Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something’: perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics

Governmental and institutional policy making in a number of countries has embedded public engagement strategies as a primary channel to connect citizens with scientific and technological innovation. Robotics is emerging as a key site for such new technological activity and its applications are likely to be increasingly notable in our lives in coming years. Robotics researchers are investing considerable time and effort in “engaging” publics. Concentrating on the findings of 24 qualitative interviews with those actively organizing or engaging publics, across 11 public engagement activities focused on the robotics field within the United Kingdom, this article explores their conceptions of “public engagement” and its benefits and constraints. The results suggest that while the language of engagement has been embraced there remain practical, conceptual, and individual influences on the level of engagement which is experienced.

A case study in serendipity: Environmental researchers use of traditional and social media for dissemination

In the face of demands for researchers to engage more actively with a wider range of publics and to capture different kinds of research impacts and engagements, we explored the ways a small number of environmental researchers use traditional and social media to disseminate research. A questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of different media as a tool to broker contact between researchers and a variety of different stakeholders (for example, publics, other researchers, policymakers, journalists) as well as how researchers perceive that their use of these media has changed over the past five years. The questionnaire was sent to 504 researchers whose work had featured in a policy-oriented e-news service. 149 valid responses were received (29%). Coverage in traditional media (newspapers, broadcast) not only brokers contact with other journalists, but is a good source of contact from other researchers (n=47, 62%) and members of the public (n=36, 26%). Although the use of social media was limited amongst our sample, it did broker contact with other researchers (n=17, 47%) and the public (n=10, 28%). Nevertheless, few environmental researchers were actively using social media to disseminate their research findings, with many continuing to rely on academic journals and face-to-face communication to reach both academic and public audiences.

Mapping the hinterland: Data issues in open science

Open science is a practice in which the scientific process is shared completely and in real time. It offers the potential to support information flow, collaboration and dialogue among professional and non-professional participants. Using semi-structured interviews and case studies, this research investigated the relationship between open science and public engagement. This article concentrates on three particular areas of concern that emerged: first, how to effectively contextualise and narrate information to render it accessible, as opposed to simply available; second, concerns about data quantity and quality; and third, concerns about the skills required for effective contextualisation, mapping and interpretation of information.

Thai visitors’ expectations and experiences of explainer interaction within a science museum context

In Western literature, there is evidence that museum explainers offer significant potential for enhancing visitors’ learning through influencing their knowledge, content, action, behaviour and attitudes. However, little research has focused on the role of explainers in other cultural contexts. This study explored interactions between visitors and museum explainers within the setting of Thailand. Two questionnaires were distributed to 600 visitors and 41 museum explainers. The results demonstrated both potential similarities and differences with Western contexts. Explainers appeared to prefer didactic approaches, focussing on factual knowledge rather than encouraging deep learning. Two-way communication, however, appeared to be enhanced by the use of a ‘pseudo-sibling relationship’ by explainers. Traditional Thai social reserve was reduced through such approaches, with visitors taking on active learning roles. These findings have implications for training museum explainers in non-Western cultures, as well as museum communication practice more generally.

Engaging With Strangers and Brief Encounters Social Scientists and Emergent Public Engagement With Science and Technology

Social scientists operate in a range of roles within the public engagement with science and technology agenda. Social scientists’ strengths in respect to “translation” and “intermediary” skills have captured attention at a time of disciplinary pressure to demonstrate impact. This article explores how social scientists’ engaged in public engagement with science and technology consider their role(s), drawing on 21 semistructured interviews and Horst and Michael’s proposals of an emergence model, in addition to ongoing discussions related to expertise. The findings suggest there are many benefits when social scientists engage with “strangers,” both scientific and public, but that focusing only on pragmatic elements misses the true opportunity such working relationships can offer among critical friends.