Department of
Science and Technology Studies
HPSCGA44
Science, Media and Culture
Syllabus
Session
2015-2016
Web site
See Moodle
Moodle site Timetable https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=22902
https://timetable.ucl.ac.uk/tt/moduleTimet.do?firstReq=Y&moduleId=HPSC
GA44
Description As much as culture is part of technoscience, science and technology are part of culture. They are even, arguably, one of the main determinant of contemporary culture in industrialised societies. Similarly, media are cultural products, but they also participate in the production of culture. Studying how technoscience and the media interact enables us to understand the place of science and technology in culture and how it is constructed. This module is intended to explore the theoretical foundations of science communication through the work of scholars in science studies. We will apply this scholarship to examples taken from various media from the Museum through television, through to the Internet. Additionally, two external interventions are planned, with people whose job it is to make science public. The assessment for the module will consist in one short oral presentation and an essay.
Key Information
Assessment
%30
Oral Presentation
%70
Essay
Prerequisites
None
Required texts
readings listed below
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Module tutors
Module tutor
Dr Jean-Baptiste Gouyon
Contact
j.gouyon@ucl.ac.uk |
Web https://ucl.academia.edu/JeanBaptisteGouyon
Office location
22 Gordon Square, Room B 14
Office hours: Tuesdays 11-­‐12; Wednesdays 11-­‐12; and by appointment: j.gouyon@ucl.ac.uk Aims and objectives
aims •
To understand the role of media in placing science in culture but also as indicators of science’s place in culture; •
to understand how media participate in the scientific enterprise; •
to understand what kind of resource science is for the media; •
to understand how producers of media content work; •
to reflect on the intersection between science, media and culture on the one hand , and globalization on the other.
objectives
By the end of this module students should be able to: •
will be familiar with the history of science in the media; •
will be familiar with the different theoretical approaches and methods to studying science in the media; •
will be able to deploy STS concepts, in particular those coming from the field of the Public Understanding of Science (PUS), in order to study science in the media in relation to culture and politics.
Module plan The course is divided into three parts. Sessions 1 to 3 are devoted to examining concepts and theory in relation to Science, media and culture. Sessions 4 to 7 each revolve around one medium, and will each contain a “methodological toolbox”. The medium under scrutiny will serve as a basis to introduce one methodological approach to studying science in the media. Sessions 8 & 9 both involve a talk followed by a Q&A with an external speaker, who is a practitioner of Science in the Media. The last session of the course will be devoted to students’ presentations. 2
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
A maximum of 2 Compulsory readings are assigned for each session. They will form the basis for the class discussions. Optional additional readings are also suggested for each sessions. A full list of readings is given at the end of the syllabus. All essential readings are available via the course’s page on Moodle. Each sessions will last two hours. A typical session will begin with a 45 minutes lecture on the topic for the day, followed by a class discussion based on the readings. Students are expected to come prepared (this includes completing the readings and completing any preparatory activity as required), and to participate in the class discussion for each session. Additional information A visit at the Science Museum will be coupled with Session 8. Details will be discussed in class. Session plan Session 1: Introduction (Friday 09 October 2015) Concepts and theory. History of Science in the Media Essential Readings: Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, chapter 4: ‘Insiders Out’, pp.145-­‐176 • Pandora, K. & Rader K. A. (2008). ‘Science in the Everyday World’. Isis, vol. 99 (2): 350-­‐
364 Additional Readings: •
•
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, chapter 3: ‘Machines’, pp.103-­‐144 •
Cooter, R. & Pumfrey, S. (1994). ‘Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularisation and science in popular culture’, History of Science, Vol. 32:237-­‐267 •
Bowler, P. J. & Morus, I. R. (2005). Making Modern Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, chapter 16: ‘Popular science’, pp.367-­‐390 •
Gregory, J.& Miller, S. (1998). Science in public, New York, London: Plenum Trade, chapter 2: ‘Science in Public Culture’, pp.19-­‐51 •
Shapin, S. (2008). ‘Science and the Modern World’, in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hakett et al., Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press, pp. 433-­‐448 Science belongs in culture. Media are at the same time instrumental in the fashioning of culture and a reflection of that culture. Examining the interplay of science with the media is a means of understanding ‘Science’s place and placing in culture’ (Cooter and Pumfrey, 1994), or what we might call the public culture of science. Session 2: Science, Media and Culture, and STS (Friday 16 October 2015) Concepts and Theory. Public Understanding of Science. Essential Readings: 3
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐Blackwell, chapter 15, ‘Public Understanding of Science’, pp. 168-­‐179 Lewenstein, B. (1995). ‘From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25(3):403-­‐436 •
•
Additional Readings: •
Wynne, B. (1996) ‘Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science’, in Irwin, A., Wynne, B. (Eds.) Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-­‐ 46 •
Wynne, B. (1995) ‘Public Understanding of Science’, in Jasanoff, S. et al. (Eds), Handbook of science and technology studies, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 361-­‐388 •
Dornan, C. (1990). ‘Some Problems in Conceptualizing the issue of “Science and the Media”’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 7:48-­‐71 •
Clemens, E. S.(1986). ‘Of Asteroids and Dinosaurs: The Role of the Press in the Shaping of Scientific Debate’, Social Studies of Science, Vol.16, No.3: 421-­‐456 In the preceding session, we should have reached to the conclusion that science in the media is a part of science. And therefore, that science and the media should not be seen as in opposition, but rather as complementary to each other. Scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS) have been arguing for a while now that the production of knowledge does not stop at the laboratory doorstep, but continues in public contexts, like the media. According to STS scholarship, science in the media is an essential part of the production of knowledge, as it is what enables agreement to be reached at the social level on what counts as valid knowledge. In this session we will consider what Science and Technology Studies can bring to the understanding of the Media, Science and Culture. We will look at the scholarship published in relation to the Public Understanding of Science, and the STS criticism of the two stage model of science communication, and reflect on whether this is adequate theoretical grounds to think of the relationship between the media and science in relation to culture. We will then reflect on the value of looking at media as technologies. Session 3: Science in Context. (Friday 23 October 2015) Concepts and Theory. Knowledge and social order. Essential Readings: •
•
Yearley, S. (2005). Making Sense of Science, chapter 8: ‘Experts in Public: Publics’ Relationship to Scientific Authority’, pp.113-­‐128 Ezrahi, Y. (2004) ‘Science and the Political imagination in contemporary democracies’, in States of Knowledge. The coproduction of science and social order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, London: Routledge, pp.254-­‐273 Additional Readings: •
Szerszynski, B. & Toogood, M. (2000). ‘Global Citizenship, the environment and the media’, in Environmental Risks and the Media, edited by Allan, S., Adam, B. and Carter, C., London:Routledge, pp.218-­‐228 •
McKechnie, R. (1996). ‘Insiders and outsiders: identifying experts on home ground’ in Irwin, A., Wynne, B. (Eds.), 1996, Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-­‐212 •
Silverstone, R.(2005). ‘The Sociology of Mediation and Communication’. In Calhoun, C, 4
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Rojek, C, and Turner, B (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage, pp. 188-­‐
207 •
Jasanoff, S. (2004). ‘Heaven and Earth. The politics of Environmental Images’, in Earthly Politics. Local and Global in Environmental Governance, edited by Jasanoff, S. & Martello, M. L., Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press , pp. 31-­‐52 In order to make sense of the relationship between science, media and culture, the notion of “Context” is key. Audiences’ encounter with science through the media does not occur in a vacuum. It happens in a cultural, social and political context. Each and everyone of us brings to bear on any piece of science in the media when we encounter it the sum total of our life experience, personal history, social circumstances. But the social, political, cultural context, in other words the social order in which a piece of science in the media is produced is also relevant here, as it will have an impact on what is said, shown, and how this is done. Scholars in STS have argued that knowledge and social order are co-­‐produced. This means that social order is determined by the knowledge produced in a given society, but it also means that the knowledge produced in a given society depends on the social order that prevails in that society. Similarly, media are one of the main means by which social order is enforced on a large scale, but they are also produced by the prevailing social order. In this session we will consider the role of the social and cultural context on the way science appears in the media, and how it is received. We will then discuss the readings. Some questions to ponder in relation to this topic may include: o How different audiences engage with different media? o
What is done to different audiences by different media? o
Could some audiences be resisting the dominant social order by refusing to engage with science? Session 4: Case Study 1: Audiences’ agency in a globalized cultural context: Science on the Internet (Friday 30 October 2015) Methodological Toolbox: Ethnographical approach to media studies Essential Readings: •
•
Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐Blackwell, chapter 16, ‘Expertise and public participation’, pp. 180-­‐188 Hine, C. (2014). ‘Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23(5): 574–591 Additional Readings:
•
Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). ‘Social Media and the Production of Knowledge: A Return to
Little Science?’, Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, Vol.
24(3): 219-237 •
Thorpe, C. & Gregory, J. (2010). ‘Producing the Post-­‐Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science’, Science as Culture, Vol. 19(3): 273-­‐301 •
Ian Welsh & Brian Wynne (2013). ‘Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats, Science as Culture’, Vol. 22(4): 540-­‐566 •
Gieryn, T. (1995). ‘Boundaries of Science’. In Jasanoff S. et al (Eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage, pp.393-­‐443 5
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
With this week’s session we enter the second part of the course, dedicated to case studies. This session will be about new media in relation to audiences’ involvement with science. The internet in general, and social media in particular, it is often asserted, blurs the boundary between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers, as internet users can contribute knowledge of their own which then becomes part of the general stock of knowledge. Examples would be the comments section of a blog, or such websites as Wikipedia. In this session we will question this assertion, especially as it tends to reify the boundary it pretends to dissolve, thus reasserting the two stages model of science communication. First we will look at some of the scholarship published on the topic. Second we will examine a website, and try to come up with some reflection about it, in the light of the readings for the week In order to come prepared to this session, you will spend some time familiarising yourselves with the website http://www.arkive.org, which deals with wildlife conservation. When browsing the website, you may want to keep the following questions in mind: Who is producing the website? Is it made evident, or do you need to look for it? Does the website privilege a specific perspective? What do you think are the producers of the website trying to achieve with it? Can you reflect on the role ascribed to visual media (photographs and films) in relation to the website objectives? What kind of knowledge does it purports to convey? Are there any claims to knowledge associated with this website? How are they supported? How would you characterise the intended audiences for the website? How are these audiences invited to participate? What can people do with the website, with its content? What uses of the website are encouraged? How would you characterise the balance of power in relation to the website’s content? What space is left to people’s own knowledge? Based on what was said in the preceding weeks of this course, how would you characterise the model of science communication at work here? The following short piece can be useful as background reading when reflecting on arkive.org: John Blewitt (2010). Media, ecology and conservation. Totnes: Green books, pp. 152-­‐158 (to be handed out in the weeks preceding this session). Session 5: Case Study 2: Advertisement (Friday 06 November 2015) Methodological Toolbox: Semiotics Essential Reading: •
Dodds RE, Tseëlon E, Weitkamp ELC. (2008) ‘Making sense of scientific claims in advertising: A study of scientifically aware consumers’. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 17(2): 211–230. •
Michael, M. (1998). ‘Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the “public understanding of science”’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 7(4): 313-­‐327 Additional Readings: •
Hellsten, I. (2002). ‘Selling the Life Sciences: Promises of a Better Future in 6
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Biotechnology Advertisements’, Science as Culture, Vol. 11(4): 459-­‐479 •
Taylor, J. S. (1993). ‘The public foetus and the family car: From abortion politics to a Volvo advertisement’, Science as Culture, Vol. 3(4): 601-­‐618 •
Myers, G. (1990). ‘The double helix as icon’, Science as Culture, Vol.1(9): 49-­‐72 •
Eden, S. (2009). ‘Food labels as boundary objects: How consumers make sense of organic and functional foods’, Public understanding of science, Vol. 20(2): 179–194 The deep embedding of science and technology in late modern post-­‐industrial cultures is evidenced by the quasi ubiquitous use of science and technology as referent in advertisements, be it to sell food stuff, cosmetics, cars, etc. This would suggest that like any other medium, advertisement is an instrument for placing science in culture, as much as it reveals this placing. In this session we will first look at some of the scholarship engaging with advertisement as a form of science communication, and review the semiotic approach as a way of analysing advertisement. The second part of the session will be devoted to examining some examples of advertisements that make use of science, which you will have collected during the week, in the light of the readings. Session 6: Case Study 3: Science in Fiction (Friday 20 November 2015) Methodological Toolbox: Discourse Analysis Essential Readings: •
Willis, M. (2006). Mesmerists, Monsters, and Machines, Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, chapter 7, ‘H.G. Wells in the Laboratory’, pp.201-­‐234 •
Jörg, D. (2003). ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-­‐Dr. Moreau Goes to Hollywood’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12(3): 297-­‐305 Additional Readings: •
Kirby, D. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. Science, Scientists and Cinema, Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, chapter 1, ‘Scientific Expertise in Hollywood’, pp. 2-­‐19 •
Kirby, D. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. Science, Scientists and Cinema, Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, chapter 4, ‘Scientists on screen’, pp. 65-­‐93 •
Sleigh, C. L. (2011). Literature and Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Introduction, pp. 1-­‐26 Novels and fiction films, as part of entertainment media, enjoy widespread currency. As such they can be said to play as important a role as information and educational media, and perhaps even more so, when it comes to fashioning the public culture of science. In this session we will focus on one case, comparing a novel with one of its film adaptations. The novel is H.G. Wells The Island of Dr Moreau, published in 1896. We will compare it with a film adaptation released a century after the book was published, in 1996. By comparing the film with the novel, we will try and isolate what both can tell us of the public culture of science of their time, and try to reflect on the effect each may have had on the public culture of science. In order to prepare for this session, you will need to familiarise yourself with H.G. Wells’s text. It can be borrowed from the library, alternatively cheap paperback copies are available on Abebooks. Photocopies of the relevant chapters will also be available. 7
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Session 7: Case Study 4: The intertextuality of climate change (Friday 27 November 2015) Essential Readings: •
•
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 7: ‘The Communication of Risk’, pp. 211-­‐247 Mellor, F. (2009). The politics of accuracy in judging global warming films. Environmental Communication, Vol. 3(2): 134-­‐150 Additional Readings: •
Yearley, S. (2005). Cultures of Environmentalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 4: ‘How Environmental Problems Come to be ‘Global’’, pp. 41-­‐53 •
Martello, M. L. (2008). ‘Arctic indigenous peoples as representations and representatives of climate change’, Social Studies of Science, 38(3): 351-­‐376 •
Cozen, B. (2013). ‘Mobilizing Artists: Green Patriot Posters, Visual Metaphors, and Climate Change Activism’, Environmental Communication, 7(2): 297-­‐314 •
Hansen, A. & Machin, D. (2013). ‘Researching Visual Environmental Communication’, Environmental Communication, Vol. 7(2): 151-­‐168
The session will be devoted to applying what was said about different media in relation to science in earlier weeks. To this end we will consider how a same topic, climate change, is addressed/presented/framed in different media. This session will be mostly based on a class discussion. The main question around it will revolve is whether the same phenomenon is presented in different media. In order to prepare for this session you will complete the readings. ADDITIONALLY, you will co-­‐
ordinate in order to find a representation of climate change in different media, preparing a short description of the way climate change is pictured in your chosen representation. These will be shared in class. Session 8: Displaying Science in the Museum (Friday 04 December 2015) Meet a practitioner 1 Essential Readings: •
•
Boon, T. (2011). ‘A Walk in the Museum with Michel de Certeau: A Conceptual Helping Hand for Museum Practitioners’, Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 54(4): 419-­‐429 MacDonald, S. (1996). ‘Authorising science: public understanding of science in museums’, in Misunderstanding Science? Edited by Irwin, A. & Wynne, B., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-­‐171 Additional Readings: •
Nahum, A. (2010) ‘Exhibiting Science: Changing Conceptions of Science Museum Display’. In Science for the Nation. Perspectives on the History of the Science Museum, edited by Peter J. T. Morris, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 176-­‐193 •
de Chadarevian, S. (2004). ‘Models and the making of molecular biology’. In Hopwood N., and de Chadarevian, S. (Eds). 2004. Models:The Third Dimension of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 339-­‐368 •
Schmid, S. D. (2006). ‘Celebrating Tomorrow Today The Peaceful Atom on Display in the Soviet Union’, Social studies of science, Vol.36(3): 331-­‐365 •
Jordanova, L. (1989). ‘Objects of knowledge’, in Vergo, P. (Ed.) The New Museology, London: Reaktion books, pp.22-­‐40 8
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
•
Silverstone, R. (1992). ‘The medium is the museum: on objects and logics in times and spaces’, in Durant, J. (ed.) Museums and the Public Understanding of Science, London: Science Museum and COPUS, pp. 34-­‐42
This session will be devoted to examining how people working in the Science Museum in London work in order to put science and technology on display. It will particularly focus on understanding how audiences are taken into account when a display is assembled. This session will be linked with a visit of the Cosmonaut exhibition at the Science Museum, with Curator Doug Millard. Session 9: Putting science on TV (Friday 11 December 2015) Meet a practitioner 2 Essential Readings: •
•
Reid, R.W. (1969). ‘Television Producer and Scientist’. Nature, Vol. 223, 455-­‐458 De Cheveigné, S., & Véron, E. (1996). Science on TV: forms and reception of science programmes on French television. Public Understanding of Science, Vol.5 (3): 231-­‐253 Additional Readings: •
•
•
•
Farry, J., & Kirby, D. A. (2012). ‘The Universe will be televised: Space, science, satellites and British television production, 1946–1969’, History and Technology, Vol. 28(3): 311-­‐
333 Boon, T. (2008). Films of Facts, London: Wallflower Press, chapter 7, ‘Television Science Genre’, pp. 209-­‐232 Dijck, J. V. (2006). 'Picturizing science : The science documentary as multimedia spectacle'. International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol.9, 5-­‐24 McLuhan, M. (2001 [1964]). ‘The Medium is the Message’, in McLuhan, M., Understanding Media, London: Routledge, pp. 7-­‐23 This session is devoted to science on television. It will involve a talk by Kate Bartlett (Head of Digital Projects at BBC Science), who will talk about the development of content for digital platform. The talk will be followed by a Q & A. With this talk, we will try to understand how audiences participate in the process of production. In order to prepare for this session, in addition to completing the readings, you will look at the clips available on the following URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/horizon50
Each student should come to class with at least one question written down.
Session 10: Students presentations (Friday 18 December 2015) Presentations should be timed to last 07 minutes, and should include a Power Point presentation. Possible topics for presentation may include: •
Critically analyse a website/webpage, OR a science documentary, OR a Science Museum display. The presentation should bring forward the kind of knowledge that is presented, how it is presented, what understanding of science underlies the object of study. The presentation should also reflect on the kind of audience engagement the chosen object (webpage, documentary, museum display) authorises, as well as formulating hypothesis about the way it is encountered by audiences. 9
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
•
Following a science story as it moves from one media to the other and examining how it is transformed along the way. The presentation should reflect on the causes and possible consequences of such transformations. Questions to ponder whilst preparing the presentation may include: are different audiences addressed by different media forms? Do all media form have the same objective? What role each media form play in the social construction of scientific facts? •
Investigating how different audiences encounter a given piece of science in the media. This can take the form of a survey with visitors of the Science Museum. Amongst the points to be examined are the way different audiences encounter a given display, tv programme, newspaper article, blog post.... A related point is the variety of personal knowledge and experiences people bring to bear on their encounter with a piece of science in the media. PLEASE NOTE: This list is non-­‐limitative. You may wish to do your presentation on another topic. If you have an idea, we can discuss it together beforehand. 10
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Schedule
Session UCL Week Topic 2 6 7 Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, chapter 4: ‘Insiders Out’, pp.145-­‐176 Science, Media 16 and Culture, October and STS Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐
Blackwell, chapter 15, ‘Public Understanding of Science’, pp. 168-­‐179 Concepts and theory. History of Science in the Media Concepts and Theory. Public Understanding of Science. Science in Context 3 4 8 9 23 October Concepts and Theory. Knowledge and social order. Case Study 1: Audiences’ agency in a globalized cultural context. 10 Pandora, K. & Rader K. A. (2008). ‘Science in the Everyday World’. Isis, vol. 99 (2): 350-­‐364
Lewenstein, B. (1995). ‘From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25(3):403-­‐
436
Yearley, S. (2005). Making Sense of Science, chapter 8: ‘Experts in Public: Publics’ Relationship to Scientific Authority’, pp.113-­‐128 Ezrahi, Y. (2004) ‘Science and the Political imagination in contemporary democracies’, in States of Knowledge. The coproduction of science and social order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, London: Routledge, pp.254-­‐273 30 October Methodological Toolbox: Ethnographical approach to media studies 5 Essential readings
09 October Introduction 1 Date Case Study 2: 06 Advertisement Novembe
Methodological r Toolbox: Semiotics Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐
Blackwell, chapter 16, ‘Expertise and public participation’, pp. 180-­‐188 Hine, C. (2014). ‘Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23(5): 574–591
Dodds RE, Tseëlon E, Weitkamp ELC. (2008) ‘Making sense of scientific claims in advertising: A study of scientifically aware consumers’. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 17(2): 211–
230.
UCL Week 11 Reading Week
11
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Session 6 7 8 UCL Week 12 13 14 Topic Date Essential readings
Case Study 3: 21 Science Fiction Novembe
Methodological r Toolbox: Discourse Analysis Willis, M. (2006). Mesmerists, Monsters, and Machines, Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, chapter 7, ‘H.G. Wells in the Laboratory’, pp.201-­‐234 Case Study 4: The intertextuality of climate change 28 Novembe
r Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 7: ‘The Communication of Risk’, pp.211-­‐247 Displaying Science in the Museum Meet a practitioner 1 Boon, T. (2011). ‘A Walk in the Museum with Michel de 04 December Certeau: A Conceptual Helping Hand for Museum Practitioners’, Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 54(4): 419-­‐
429 MacDonald, S. (1996). ‘Authorising science: public understanding of science in museums’, in Misunderstanding Science? Edited by Irwin, A. & Wynne, B., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-­‐171
9 15 Putting science 11 on TV December Meet a practitioner 2 10 16 Students presentations Kirby, D. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. Science, Scientists and Cinema, Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, chapter 1, ‘Scientific Expertise in Hollywood’, pp. 2-­‐19
Mellor, F. (2009). The politics of accuracy in judging global warming films. Environmental Communication, Vol. 3(2): 134-­‐
150
Reid, R.W. (1969). ‘Television Producer and Scientist’. Nature, Vol. 223, 455-­‐458 De Cheveigné, S., & Véron, E. (1996). Science on TV: forms and reception of science programmes on French television. Public Understanding of Science, Vol.5 (3): 231-­‐253 No Readings!
18 December Reading list 1. Boon, T. (2008). Films of Facts, London: Wallflower Press, chapter 7, ‘Television Science Genre’, pp. 209-­‐232 2. Boon, T. (2011). ‘A Walk in the Museum with Michel de Certeau: A Conceptual Helping Hand for Museum Practitioners’, Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 54(4): 419-­‐429 3. Bowler, P. J. & Morus, I. R. (2005). Making Modern Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, chapter 16: ‘Popular science’, pp.367-­‐390 4. Clemens, E. S.(1986). ‘Of Asteroids and Dinosaurs: The Role of the Press in the Shaping of Scientific Debate’, Social Studies of Science, Vol.16, No.3: 421-­‐456 5. Cooter, R. & Pumfrey, S. (1994). ‘Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularisation and science in popular culture’, History of Science, Vol. 32:237-­‐267 6. Cozen, B. (2013). ‘Mobilizing Artists: Green Patriot Posters, Visual Metaphors, and 12
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Climate Change Activism’, Environmental Communication, 7(2): 297-­‐314 7. de Chadarevian, S. (2004). ‘Models and the making of molecular biology’. In Hopwood N., and de Chadarevian, S. (Eds). 2004. Models:The Third Dimension of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 339-­‐368 8. De Cheveigné, S., & Véron, E. (1996). Science on TV: forms and reception of science programmes on French television. Public Understanding of Science, Vol.5 (3): 231-­‐253 9. Dijck, J. V. (2006). 'Picturizing science : The science documentary as multimedia spectacle'. International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol.9, 5-­‐24 10. Dodds RE, Tseëlon E, Weitkamp ELC. (2008) ‘Making sense of scientific claims in advertising: A study of scientifically aware consumers’. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 17(2): 211–230. 11. Dornan, C. (1990). ‘Some Problems in Conceptualizing the issue of “Science and the Media”’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 7:48-­‐71 12. Eden, S. (2009). ‘Food labels as boundary objects: How consumers make sense of organic and functional foods’, Public understanding of science, Vol. 20(2): 179–194 13. Ezrahi, Y. (2004) ‘Science and the Political imagination in contemporary democracies’, in States of Knowledge. The coproduction of science and social order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, London: Routledge, pp.254-­‐273 14. Farry, J., & Kirby, D. A. (2012). ‘The Universe will be televised: Space, science, satellites and British television production, 1946–1969’, History and Technology, Vol. 28(3): 311-­‐
333 15. Gieryn, T. (1995). ‘Boundaries of Science’. In Jasanoff S. et al (Eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage, pp.393-­‐443 16. Gregory, J.& Miller, S. (1998). Science in public, New York, London: Plenum Trade, chapter 2: ‘Science in Public Culture’, pp.19-­‐51 17. Hansen, A. & Machin, D. (2013). ‘Researching Visual Environmental Communication’, Environmental Communication, Vol. 7(2): 151-­‐168 18. Hellsten, I. (2002). ‘Selling the Life Sciences: Promises of a Better Future in Biotechnology Advertisements’, Science as Culture, Vol. 11(4): 459-­‐479 19. Hine, C. (2014). ‘Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23(5): 574–591 20. Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 7: ‘The Communication of Risk’, pp. 211-­‐247 21. Ian Welsh & Brian Wynne (2013). ‘Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats, Science as Culture’, Vol. 22(4): 540-­‐566 22. Jasanoff, S. (2004). ‘Heaven and Earth. The politics of Environmental Images’, in Earthly Politics. Local and Global in Environmental Governance, edited by Jasanoff, S. & Martello, M. L., Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press , pp. 31-­‐52 23. Jordanova, L. (1989). ‘Objects of knowledge’, in Vergo, P. (Ed.) The New Museology, London: Reaktion books, pp.22-­‐40 24. Jörg, D. (2003). ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-­‐Dr. Moreau Goes to Hollywood’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12(3): 297-­‐305 25. Kirby, D. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. Science, Scientists and Cinema, Cambridge, 13
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
MS: MIT Press, chapter 1, ‘Scientific Expertise in Hollywood’, pp. 2-­‐19 26. Kirby, D. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood. Science, Scientists and Cinema, Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, chapter 4, ‘Scientists on screen’, pp. 65-­‐93 27. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, chapter 3: ‘Machines’, pp.103-­‐144 28. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, chapter 4: ‘Insiders Out’, pp.145-­‐176 29. Lewenstein, B. (1995). ‘From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25(3):403-­‐436
30. Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). ‘Social Media and the Production of Knowledge: A Return to
Little Science?’, Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, Vol.
24(3): 219-237 31. MacDonald, S. (1996). ‘Authorising science: public understanding of science in museums’, in Misunderstanding Science? Edited by Irwin, A. & Wynne, B., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-­‐171 32. Martello, M. L. (2008). ‘Arctic indigenous peoples as representations and representatives of climate change’, Social Studies of Science, 38(3): 351-­‐376 33. McKechnie, R. (1996). ‘Insiders and outsiders: identifying experts on home ground’ in Irwin, A., Wynne, B. (Eds.), 1996, Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-­‐212 34. McLuhan, M. (2001 [1964]). ‘The Medium is the Message’, in McLuhan, M., Understanding Media, London: Routledge, pp. 7-­‐23 35. Mellor, F. (2009). The politics of accuracy in judging global warming films. Environmental Communication, Vol. 3(2): 134-­‐150 36. Michael, M. (1998). ‘Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the “public understanding of science”’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 7(4): 313-­‐327 37. Myers, G. (1990). ‘The double helix as icon’, Science as Culture, Vol.1(9): 49-­‐72 38. Nahum, A. (2010) ‘Exhibiting Science: Changing Conceptions of Science Museum Display’. In Science for the Nation. Perspectives on the History of the Science Museum, edited by Peter J. T. Morris, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 176-­‐193 39. Pandora, K. & Rader K. A. (2008). ‘Science in the Everyday World’. Isis, vol. 99 (2): 350-­‐
364 40. Reid, R.W. (1969). ‘Television Producer and Scientist’. Nature, Vol. 223, 455-­‐458 41. Schmid, S. D. (2006). ‘Celebrating Tomorrow Today The Peaceful Atom on Display in the Soviet Union’, Social studies of science, Vol.36(3): 331-­‐365 42. Shapin, S. (2008). ‘Science and the Modern World’, in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hakett et al., Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press, pp. 433-­‐448 43. Silverstone, R. (1992). ‘The medium is the museum: on objects and logics in times and spaces’, in Durant, J. (ed.) Museums and the Public Understanding of Science, London: Science Museum and COPUS, pp. 34-­‐42 44. Silverstone, R.(2005). ‘The Sociology of Mediation and Communication’. In Calhoun, C, Rojek, C, and Turner, B (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage, pp. 188-­‐
14
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
207 45. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐Blackwell, chapter 15, ‘Public Understanding of Science’, pp. 168-­‐179 46. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Second Edition), Chichester: Wiley-­‐Blackwell, chapter 16, ‘Expertise and public participation’, pp. 180-­‐188 47. Sleigh, C. L. (2011). Literature and Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Introduction, pp. 1-­‐26 48. Szerszynski, B. & Toogood, M. (2000). ‘Global Citizenship, the environment and the media’, in Environmental Risks and the Media, edited by Allan, S., Adam, B. and Carter, C., London:Routledge, pp.218-­‐228 49. Taylor, J. S. (1993). ‘The public foetus and the family car: From abortion politics to a Volvo advertisement’, Science as Culture, Vol. 3(4): 601-­‐618 50. Thorpe, C. & Gregory, J. (2010). ‘Producing the Post-­‐Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science’, Science as Culture, Vol. 19(3): 273-­‐301 51. Willis, M. (2006). Mesmerists, Monsters, and Machines, Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, chapter 7, ‘H.G. Wells in the Laboratory’, pp.201-­‐234 52. Wynne, B. (1995) ‘Public Understanding of Science’, in Jasanoff, S. et al. (Eds), Handbook of science and technology studies, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 361-­‐388 53. Wynne, B. (1996) ‘Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science’, in Irwin, A., Wynne, B. (Eds.) Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-­‐ 46 54. Yearley, S. (2005). Cultures of Environmentalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 4: ‘How Environmental Problems Come to be ‘Global’’, pp. 41-­‐53 55. Yearley, S. (2005). Making Sense of Science, chapter 8: ‘Experts in Public: Publics’ Relationship to Scientific Authority’, pp.113-­‐128
Assessment
Summary
Description
Deadline
CW
Oral Presentation
18
December
N/A – 10 minutes
CW
Essay
09
December
2015 –
10:00 am
3,500
Coursework Student presentations (Friday 18 December 2014) 15
Word limit
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
Presentations should be timed to last 07 minutes, and should include a Power Point presentation. Possible topics for presentation may include: •
Critically analyse a website/webpage, OR a science documentary, OR a Science Museum display. The presentation should bring forward the kind of knowledge that is presented, how it is presented, what understanding of science underlies the object of study. The presentation should also reflect on the kind of audience engagement the chosen object (webpage, documentary, museum display) authorises, as well as formulating hypothesis about the way it is encountered by audiences. •
Following a science story as it moves from one media to the other and examining how it is transformed along the way. The presentation should reflect on the causes and possible consequences of such transformations. Questions to ponder whilst preparing the presentation may include: are different audiences addressed by different media forms? Do all media form have the same objective? What role each media form play in the social construction of scientific facts? •
Investigating how different audiences encounter a given piece of science in the media. This can take the form of a survey with visitors of the Science Museum. Amongst the points to be examined are the way different audiences encounter a given display, tv programme, newspaper article, blog post.... A related point is the variety of personal knowledge and experiences people bring to bear on their encounter with a piece of science in the media. PLEASE NOTE: This list is non-­‐limitative. You may wish to do your presentation on another topic. If you have an idea, we can discuss it together beforehand. Essay questions Choose one question in the list: 1. Bruno Latour wrote: ‘The construction of facts, like a game of rugby, is thus a collective process.’ (Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, p.104). Discuss this quote in relation to the role of the media in linking science with culture. 2. Given that scientific knowledge is claimed to be universal, to what extent can it be said that the presentation of science in the media is instrumental for the establishment of a global social order? 3. Should ignorance of science always be seen as a deficit to be remedied? Why would people choose to remain ignorant? 4. Identify and discuss three functions of science in the mass media. In your answer you should make use of specific examples. 16
HPSCGA44 Science, Media and Culture
2015-16 syllabus
5. How does the presentation of science in the media relate to the definition of the cultural boundaries of science? 6. Scientific knowledge is a resource for the media. But the media are also a resource for scientists. Discuss this assertion with specific reference to cases discussed in class. 7. Is the notion of accuracy at all relevant when discussing science fiction movies in relation to media, science and culture? Why? PLEASE NOTE: You may want to write on another topic. If it were to be the case, please arrange an appointment, so that we can discuss it beforehand. CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION: The closing date for uploading your essay on Turnit-­‐in is December, 9th 2015, 10 am. I’m happy to discuss your essay before submission. Important policy information Details of college and departmental policies relating to modules and assessments can be found in the STS Student Handbook www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/handbook All students taking modules in the STS department are expected to read these policies.
17