:: Volume 8, Issue 2 (11-2019) ::
scds 2019, 8(2): 95-120 Back to browse issues page
Explaining the Constructive Model of Science Popularization in TV Channels of IRIB
Mitra Afzali Farooji , Ali Akbar Farhangi
Abstract:   (1646 Views)
IRIB as a main actor is responsible for joining public with science through which scientific discourse is institutionalized. In this essay, after providing the causal conditions and the context, the current model of science popularization, has been identified. The research method of this research is the grounded theory, and the data were gathered through the unstructured, deep interviews with 14 experts who were involved in scientific programming.
Findings of the essay suggest that IRIB current pattern, is purely ideological science. Following the conservatism, the preference for education to science popularization discourse, the low level of public perception of science, IRIB choose the approaches of tribune look like of media, extreme sophisticated of science language, scientific stereotyping and symbolic power tool which result in consequences like science distortion, the fusion of science and pseudoscience, failure to bring science to the public sphere While if IRIB modified the concept of science and adopted the non-politicized, critical and participative approaches, it could bring scientific authority  for IRIB through simplification and attractiveness of science.
 
Keywords: Science Communication, Science Popularization, Media Science, Public, Television, IRIB
Full-Text [PDF 428 kb]   (195 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2019/04/20 | Accepted: 2020/06/10 | Published: 2020/06/10
References
1. 6. Bowater, L., & Yeoman, K. (2013). Science communication: a practical guide for scientists. Willy-blackwell.
2. 7. Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 375-394.
3. 8. Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in Society: An introduction to social studies of science. London & New York: Routledge.
4. 9. Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about Television Science: How Students Understand the Nature of Science from Different Program Genres. journal of research in science teaching, 40(2), 234-256.
5. 10. Esch, M. (2005). Make Science into a TV Series. Berlin: MaxPlanckResearch.
6. 11. G¨opfert, W. (1996). Scheduled science: TV coverage of science, technology,medicine and social science and programming policies in Britain and Germany. Public Understand, 5, 361–374.
7. 12. Gerhards , Jürgen ; S. Schäfer, Mike;. (2009). Two normative models of science in the public sphere: Human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 437-451.
8. 13. Hut, R., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Smeets, I., & R. Stoof, C. (2016). Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 2507-2518.
9. 14. Koolstra, C. M., Bos, M. J., & Vermeulen, I. E. (2006). Through which medium should science information professionals communicate with the public: television or the internet? Journal of Science Communication, 1-8.
10. 15. LaFollette, M. C. (2013). Science on American Television: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. 16. Lehmkuhl, M. (2013). Science Communication in 20th Century Europe. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin & Research Center Jülich.
12. 17. Lehmkuhl, M., Karamanidou, C., Mörä, T., Petkova, K., & Trench, B. (2012). Scheduling science on television: A comparative analysis of the representations of science in 11 European countries. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 1002-1018.
13. 18. Maeseele, P., & Desmet, L. (2009). Science on television: how? Like that! Journal of Science Communication, 1-10.
14. 19. Mullahy, B. (2004). Science Communicators: A study of the emerging profession of science .communications in Australia. Melbourne: RMIT University.
15. 20. Patairiya, M. (2008). Science communication: a conceptual framework. National Council for Science and Technology Communication, Science and Technology, New Delhi.
17. 22. Stanley, M. (2011). How scientists stopped talking about science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 235-239.
19. 24. Whittle, C. (1997). Teaching Science by Television:The Audience, Educaiton, History,and the Future. University of New Mexico,. EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER.


XML   Persian Abstract   Print



Volume 8, Issue 2 (11-2019) Back to browse issues page