• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Scientific citizenship and television in Ireland: a study of production, content and audience reception Submitted by Yvonne Cunningham BSc MSc For the award of Doctor of Philosophy Supervised by Dr Pádraig Murphy School of Communications Dublin City University August 2014 Declaration I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work, that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge breach any law of copyright, and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. Signed : ______________________________ YVONNE CUNNINGHAM ID Number : 56213118 Date : 12 August 2014 ii Abstract Because of increasing dependence on scientific knowledge, citizens, if they are to participate democratically in society, need to be able to take part in decision-making about scientific issues. The ideal of citizenship has always included the concepts of rights and obligations; the notion of scientific citizenship (Irwin 2001) can be perceived as a normative ideal which implies not only that scientific knowledge is important for citizenship in contemporary society but also that citizens can lay a legitimate claim about accountability in scientific research. Citizens interact with science through the mass media, particularly television, which is such a part of the routine of daily life. This interaction is part of their cultural citizenship, the idea of individuals patching together an identity as citizen from all available sources, including mass media, using everyday media texts and culture to understand, take up, reflect on and reform identities that are embedded in communities of different kinds. This thesis examines scientific citizenship by looking at how publics use ‘science on television’ as part of an ethno-epistemic assemblage to inform their everyday actions. Television fits into this assemblage as television viewing practices are embedded in everyday life; this means that local contexts of text–reader interaction are a salient part of ethno-epistemic assemblages. Thematic representations of the assemblages of ‘science on television’ emerged from a production–content–reception analysis of science on Irish television, a framework known as the circuit of mass communication. This research privileges the reception analysis, which was carried out with focus groups of television viewers, because in talking together citizens construct and shape their responses to science on television. The analysis follows how focus group participants, as non-experts, participate in science by talk; speaking is, indeed, their political action, and they use the resources of their particular ethno-epistemic assemblages to construct and contest their paths to knowledge. This is a positive view of the potential of the idea of scientific citizenship. However, this potential is not matched by the television content on offer, which is too often formulaic and uncritical of the institutions of science. I call for an ethos of public journalism which emphasises the relationship between the practice of journalism and the democratic work of citizens in a self-governing republic, and suggest that television journalists and producers are ideally suited to help constitute vital “publics” to deliberate complex issues and engage in collective problem-solving activities. Critical comment on science is a crucial aspect of this public journalism, and television, in conjunction with new media, can become a forum for scientists to hold an interactive dialogue with citizens. Focus group participants are already negotiating their scientific citizenship through talk, and scientists and policy makers need to join these discussions, as science, and its consequences, does not end at the laboratory bench. iii Table of contents Declaration ................................................................................................................... ii Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii Table of contents ......................................................................................................... iv List of tables ................................................................................................................ ix List of figures ................................................................................................................ x List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... xii 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introducing the research questions ................................................................. 1 1.2 Background—position of media in science and society models ....................... 7 1.3 The concept of scientific citizenship .............................................................. 17 1.4 Ethno-epistemic assemblages....................................................................... 29 2 Literature review ................................................................................................. 36 2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 36 2.2 Constructing the scientific citizen .................................................................. 37 2.3 Six blind men describe an elephant ............................................................... 43 2.4 The scientific habitus—how science constructs itself .................................... 43 2.5 Dealing with the deficit model—how science constructs publics .................... 47 2.6 A tense or symbiotic relationship?—how science constructs the media ........ 52 2.6.1 Media influences on public policy and funding...................................... 52 2.6.2 Coverage of scientific mavericks .......................................................... 53 2.6.3 Concerns about media confusing the public ......................................... 55 2.6.4 Scientist–journalist tension, fears of inaccuracy and the so-called symbiotic relationship .......................................................................................... 56 2.7 A tense relationship—how science constructs policy makers ........................ 57 2.8 Open and transparent—how policy makers construct themselves ................. 63 2.9 An economic powerhouse—how policy makers construct science ................ 65 2.10 Misusing the dialogue model—how policy makers construct publics ......... 66 iv 2.11 Helping to increase public support and understanding—how policy makers construct media ...................................................................................................... 68 2.12 Journalists first and science journalists second—how media constructs itself 70 2.13 ‘Somehow removed from the common culture’—how media constructs science 72 2.14 Where is the audience?—how media constructs publics .......................... 74 2.15 Concluding remarks on the literature ........................................................ 76 3 Rationale for method ........................................................................................... 78 3.1 Using discourse analysis to examine the assemblage ................................... 78 3.2 The circuit of mass communication: production–content–reception ............... 79 3.2.1 Reception—examining the non-existent audience ................................ 81 3.2.1 Content—linking the ‘citizen’ and ‘expert’ parts of the assemblage ...... 84 3.2.2 Production—the programme maker ‘as a political person’ .................... 85 3.2.3 Science in television news ................................................................... 91 3.3 Strengths and limitations of research design ................................................. 93 3.3.1 Strengths and limitations of focus groups ............................................. 93 3.3.2 Strengths and limitations of content analysis ........................................ 94 3.3.3 Strengths and limitations of discourse analysis .................................... 95 4 Method ................................................................................................................ 96 4.1 Methodological design for this study.............................................................. 96 4.2 Part 1, Reception study ................................................................................. 96 4.2.1 Make up of focus groups—pre-existing and constructed according to specific criteria .................................................................................................... 96 4.2.2 Recruiting participants for focus groups ............................................... 98 4.2.3 Conducting the focus groups .............................................................. 101 4.2.4 Stimuli for focus groups—nanotechnology, coeliac disease, the missing link and digital intelligence................................................................................. 104 4.2.5 Analysing focus groups—recording, transcribing and analysing ......... 107 4.3 Part

Load more

  359

Copy Link