9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Seoul, South Korea, 17-19 May 2006
INVISIBLE WITNESSES? – REPRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ON UK TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION
Richard Holliman, Elizabeth Whitelegg, Joachim Allgaier, Barbara Hodgson and Eileen Scanlon Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology, The Open University, UK.
Abstract
Gendered representations, particularly those that reinforce sex-role stereotypes, have the potential to influence audience reception. It follows that the images young people see portrayed on television are one factor that has the potential to influence the choices they make about their future careers. With the aim of informing these ongoing debates the Invisible Witnesses? Project Team is investigating representations of science, engineering and technology (SET) on UK terrestrial television from a gender perspective. In this paper we briefly discuss the rationale behind the project and describe our methods of data collection and analysis. Two week-long samples, six months apart, of a wide range of output - e.g. including factual and fictional programmes from primetime, daytime and children’s TV - from the five channels currently broadcasting using analogue signals in the UK, were collected. In our presentation we will describe some quantitative findings from the first week-long sample, e.g. documenting the distribution of programmes that portray SET, and provide qualitative illustrative examples of gendered representations of scientists, engineers and technologists with a view to informing ongoing debates about the influence of popular culture on the uptake of careers in SET by girls and women.
Keywords: Science, engineering and technology on television, Sex-role stereotypes
1. Introduction
The level of participation of girls and women in science, engineering and technology (SET) has been a concern for many years. [1] Such is the range and interconnectivity of the factors that might explain this phenomenon that it is not possible to identify and isolate independent factors that influence girls’ choice of science at school level. However, girls’ (and boys') images of themselves as future scientists and their self-beliefs in their ability to succeed in these occupations are important factors that have the potential to encourage, but also limit participation [2] and are embedded in the characteristics of girls’ interaction with the teaching and learning environment, their access to and performance in science. In this sense, girls’ meaningful access to the curriculum and their assessment experience is limiting their participation. Further to this, girls and women's exposure to influences outside the school environment (e.g. parental and peer encouragement/discouragement, exposure to sex-role stereotypes in media portrayals) can be as powerful as the experiences they have in the classroom. Alongside compulsory science education, media coverage of science, particularly television programmes, is a key site where young peoples’ perceptions of SET and its relationship with society are formed. [3, 4, 5] It has long been argued that gendered representations, particularly those that reinforce sex-role stereotypes, have the potential to influence audience reception, [6, 7, 8, 9, 10] but that the processes involved in interpreting and contextualizing media content are complex. [11] In this sense, the images young people see presented on television are generally thought to have some influence on the choices some students make about their future careers as these portrayals may lead to the opening up or closing down of certain career possibilities according to students’ views of themselves. To this end, results from numerous ‘Draw-a-Scientist’ tests have shown that young children hold stereotypical views, portraying scientists as male with unruly white hair, wearing a lab coat and glasses, [12] whilst other studies have investigated gendered representations in popular films. [13] These findings are useful to consider when investigating how young people (re)construct and/or challenge stereotypical images of television portrayals of women and men in these occupations, because television regularly represents images of scientists, engineers or technologists. Science on television could therefore be one important factor that influences an individual's perceptions of what it means to be a scientist, engineer or technologist. To begin to investigate these issues requires detailed and systematic analysis of these portrayals. The following quote, taken from the recently published Women in Work Commission Report in the UK, "Shaping a fairer future", illustrate these points:
Girls at Quintin Kynaston School get ideas and information from TV and films. For example, one girl became interested in neurology after watching operations on the Discovery Channel; another was inspired by
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology female TV news journalists. The girls feel that visible female role models are key to inspiring non-traditional career choices.
Two-thirds of the approximately 3,000 students on forensic science courses in the UK are female, making it one of the most science-based degrees for women. Research by the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing (Semta, 2005) largely attributes the increase in female students to the portrayal of a female forensic pathologist by Amanda Burton in the BBC TV drama Silent Witness. [14]
These quotes suggest that television can portray positive images of women as scientists, engineers and technologists, potentially influencing future career choices. In this sense, women are portrayed as "visible witnesses" (and active actors in every sense of the term) in scientific investigations. Other examples, such as Eureka TV [15], Rough Science [16] and the popularity of Channel 4's Scrapheap Challenge, [17] which involves teams of (female and male) amateur enthusiasts who design and construct machines from scrap, illustrate that science, engineering and technology can be enjoyed by both sexes. Indeed, it has been argued that the success of the portrayal of the female forensic scientist Sam Ryan (played by Amanda Burton) in the programme Silent Witness has increased demand for formal study in this area, in particular by women, leading to a proliferation of forensic science courses in Higher Education Institutions in the UK [14]. Somewhat ironically, given the ongoing concerns about falling numbers of physical science students, there are now so many forensic science graduates that concerns have been raised that sufficient jobs do not exist for them and that expectations for employment as forensic scientists cannot be matched by the demand. [18] These examples suggest that positive portrayals of women as scientists, engineers and technologists are currently broadcast on UK television and that these portrayals can be a factor influencing women’s and girls’ choices in whether to study SET subjects. But how many examples are being broadcast and what roles are women and men conducting in these programmes? When we consider all forms of programming across all five terrestrial channels currently broadcasting using analogue signals in the UK we will investigate the extent to which are women still "invisible witnesses" in portrayals of science, engineering and technology.
1.1 The Invisible Witnesses? Project
Stereotypical images of science and scientists have been studied for many years. For example, in 1957 Margaret Mead and Rhoda Métraux published a study in the journal Science that investigated American high school students’ attitudes to science and scientists, in part because of a concern about recruiting sufficient numbers of young people to study science. [19] Whilst at least one of the reasons for conducting this study – the concern about recruiting sufficient numbers of young people to study science – remains the same today as it did in 1957, one crucial factor has changed; women scientists, engineers and technologists are now regularly represented in mainstream popular culture, with the potential to challenge outdated, simplistic stereotypes. We aim to build on recent work conducted in this area, [20] providing an up-to-date survey of SET programmes on UK terrestrial television. The objective of the Invisible Witnesses? Project is to investigate representations of science, engineering and technology on UK terrestrial television. [21] In particular, we aim to document the distribution of scientists, engineers and technologists on television in terms of gender with a view to informing a further project investigating the influence of portrayals of scientists, engineers and technologists on girls’ and young women’s participation in SET fields. To this end, the Invisible Witnesses? Project involves a study of media content of two week-long samples of UK television schedules, where content analysis is defined as:
[...] an accepted method of textual investigation, particularly in the field of mass communications. It involves establishing categories and then counting the number of instances when those categories are used in a particular item of text, for instance in a newspaper report. [22]
The following research questions will be addressed by the study:
1. How much science, engineering and technology (SET) is represented on UK terrestrial TV during the two one- week sample periods? 2. What is the distribution of SET on UK terrestrial TV between the five channels during the two one-week sample periods? 3. What times of the day is SET represented on UK terrestrial TV during the two one-week sample periods? 4. Which genre/type of programme represents the most SET on UK terrestrial TV during the two one-week sample periods? 5. What is the gender distribution among scientists/experts/those in authority in science programmes on UK terrestrial TV during the two one-week sample periods? 6. How many women/men are represented in SET programmes during the two one-week sample periods? Of these, how many words are spoken by women and men in these programmes?
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology 7. What is the distribution of female/male scientists, engineers and technologists in SET programmes during the two one-week sample periods? Of these, how many words are spoken by women and men in these programmes? 8. How many female/male presenters/narrators (not SET) are there in these SET programmes? Of these, how many words are spoken by women and men in these programmes? In the presentation we will describe findings from the first sample period that inform research questions 1 to 4, inclusive, and provide illustrative examples of gendered representations of scientists, engineers and technologists.
2. Methods
We proactively tracked pre-selected television output for programmes that might portray SET content for the five terrestrial channels currently broadcasting in the UK using analogue signals – BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Table 1 shows the audience share for the weeks ending 16 October 2005 and 12 March 2006, illustrating that of those watching television during the sample periods, on average just over 69% were viewing these five channels.
Table 1 Audience share for the five channels in the two week-long samples. [23]
Audience share (%)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Channel Week ending 16 October 2005 Week ending 12 March 2006 BBC1 24.5 22.3 BBC2 8.8 9.3 ITV1 21.5 21.2 Channel 4 8.9 9.2 Channel 5 6.6 5.9 Sub-total 70.3 68.0 Others (satellite, cable 29.7 32.0 & freeview)
The two samples ran for seven days each and were six months apart - from 6th to 12th October 2005, inclusive and 10th to 19th March 2006, inclusive. [24] The two samples include examples of breakfast, daytime, children’s, primetime and late evening television and of factual and fictional programming, including: news reporting, documentaries, schools programmes, cartoons, situation comedies, game shows and dramas. We made this selection because previous studies of media coverage of science have tended to investigate mainly factual reporting, e.g. in terms of news and current affairs. Indeed, one of the oft-cited critiques of analyses of media content is that studies have tended to overlook fictional representations in favour of studies of news and current affairs. As Dornan argues:
Notwithstanding that science and scientists feature regularly in television, films, and advertising of all descriptions – and despite the fact that commentators refer frequently to the problem of science and the media – the dominant concern has in fact been journalistic coverage. [25]
We believe that by producing a representative sample of science on television across a range of programming (including cartoons and children’s television) this project will inform ongoing debates about stereotypical portrayals of SET, as well as providing an overview of the amount and types of programmes currently being broadcast on UK terrestrial television. [26] To inform the pre-selection process we investigated TV listings for programmes that might include science, engineering or technological (SET) content, e.g. the BBC2 science documentary programme Horizon. [27] We also recorded programmes where descriptions were inconclusive but where SET content might be reasonably expected to be broadcast, e.g. news and current affairs programmes and game shows. Finally, we recorded programmes where the TV listings did not provide detailed information and where the research team was unsure of the specific content, e.g. children’s programmes. Overall, therefore, our sample should be considered representative of the types of SET programmes broadcast using analogue signals in the UK during the sample periods. Table 2 shows that, in total we recorded 666 programmes and a total of 373 hours 55 minutes of programming over the two samples (~22% of the available programmes). [28]
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology
Table 2 Programmes recorded from the five channels in the two week-long samples. [29]
Sample BBC1 BBC2 ITV1 Channel 4 Channel 5 Total No. of 61 64 60 48 69 302 programmes 1 Duration - 36/30 35/00 30/35 28/35 31/25 162/05 hours/minutes No. of 49 114 57 50 94 364 programmes 2 Duration - 29/05 64/00 29/50 39/55 49/00 211/50 hours/minutes
Once collected the programmes in the two week-long samples were analysed to confirm whether they included SET content, with a view to conducting further detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis. To achieve this further selection we employed the following operational definitions of science, engineering and technology. These definitions were adapted from earlier work conducted as part of the European Network of Science Communication Teachers Initiative. [30]
Science These programmes should include significant explicit scientific content, namely a reference or references to scientific findings, scientific research, scientific procedure, science as an intellectual activity, or scientists. Engineering These programmes should include significant explicit engineering content, namely a reference or references to engineering design, engineering research, engineering procedures, engineering as an intellectual activity, or engineers. Technology These programmes should include significant explicit technology content, namely a reference or references to technological design, technology research, technological procedures, technology as an intellectual activity, or technologists.
Following an initial period where these operational definitions were discussed by the project team, the same researcher viewed each of the programmes recorded for the two samples, selecting those with SET content. These selected programmes were then recorded to VHS tapes for further analysis. Where a complete programme was deemed to contain SET content its entirety was recorded for further analysis. Where extracts of programmes, e.g. discreet news items within a bulletin, were considered to represent SET content, only the SET content was recorded for further analysis. We note that these definitions were applied to factual and fictional representations, and to adults, children and non-humans representing SET. Hence, the same operationalised definitions were applied to cartoon characters, children's characters and scientists portrayed on the BBC science documentary Horizon. To inform the analysis of televisual content, fully annotated transcripts will be produced for all the programmes with SET content. [31] There are obvious challenges in deciding what counts as science, engineering and technology, e.g. when programmes examine areas such as biomedicine, architecture and/or information and communications technology. When the researcher was unsure about whether to select a programme, or programme extract as SET this was viewed and discussed with the project team so that a consistent application of the operational definitions could be maintained.
3. Summary
Examining media content is the first step to investigating the wider context within which this coverage is constructed and interpreted. [32] (We will investigate production and reception issues in a further phase of the project). By investigating issues of gender in media coverage involving SET, we can provide insights into who does and does not appear and what social roles these actors are assigned. In so doing we will provide an up-to-date perspective on representations of SET on UK terrestrial television, which can inform current debates in this area.
Government information campaigns should show women in occupations not traditionally taken up by them, and men as parents and carers. The media, in particular drama and advertising, should be encouraged to do likewise. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport should set up two high-level groups, of advertisers and key players in television drama, to encourage non-stereotypical portrayals of women and men at work. [33]
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology Within this broader context it is important to acknowledge the changing media landscape in the UK as the age of multi-channel digital television, which provides greater consumer choice in terms of the range of programmes being broadcast at any one time, is increasingly embraced. As a result of these increased opportunities, dedicated channels [with branded web sites, e.g. see 15, 16, 17, 27] exist for children, including CBBC (for 6-12 year olds), CITV (for a similar age group) and CBeebies (for pre-school children). Whether this greater consumer choice will be matched by the types of programmes that are made and in greater diversity in on-screen sex-role stereotypes remains to be seen. Recent research does suggest, however, that technological innovations are influencing which media children and young people choose to consume. For example, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom [34] recently announced that television viewing figures for young people (16 to 24) had fallen for the first time in the medium's history, [35] in part because they are choosing to switch off the television and log on to the Internet and the World Wide Web, not least to create their own content. [36] In this way, technological innovations are changing the way that people communicate with each other; television will have to compete to remain a significant source of information for future generations.
People are not socialized by television alone; many other sources of information and inspiration provide the basis for individual’s decisions and beliefs. Television is one source of information, a source competing with and compared with other information sources that help socialize and develop individuals. [37]
As we stand, however, television continues to be one of the key sites for representing science, engineering and technology. Indeed, we start from the premise that television is an important site for informing citizens, but that these representations provide a partial, mediated view of science and scientists. We believe that this project will provide an innovative approach, addressing a current gap in the literature: studies that investigate representations of gender in SET programmes on UK terrestrial television. In so doing we believe that this project could inform a further study examining media influence in the age of multi-channel digital television. We also believe that the results could be disseminated to reach media professionals, informing their professional practice in representing diversity in future SET programmes.
4. References
[1] Specific concerns have been raised about the number of women and girls choosing to study physical sciences, e.g., see P. Murphy, and E. Whitelegg “Girls in the Physics Classroom: a review of the research on the participation of girls in physics”, Institute of Physics, London, in press; and E. Whitelegg and P. Murphy “Girls and physics: A continuing problem of access?”, SEH806 Contemporary issues in Science Learning Symposium, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 2005. Available online at: http://www.open.ac.uk/science/SEH806/Symposium/GirlsPhysics.html; last checked 23 March 2006; A. Cleaves, “The formation of science choices in secondary school, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 471-486, 2005; S. Connor, “Chemistry: The country that gave the world Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday is not investing enough to produce their successors in the 21st Century,” Independent, p. 12, 2004, December 22; D. MaCleod and P. Curtis, “Acid test,” The Guardian: G2 - Education, pp.1-3, 2004, December 7. [2] E. Staberg, “Gendered voices from the natural science programme in Swedish upper secondary school: on the need for a more socially responsible science and technology,” Proceedings of the 8th Gender and Science and Technology Association Conference, Ahmedabad, India, 1996; and L. Erwin and P. Maurutto “Beyond Access: considering gender deficits in science education,” Gender and Education Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 51-69, 1998. [3] N. Luhmann, The reality of the mass media, Polity, Cambridge, 2000. [4] House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and society, Third Report, HMSO, London, 2000, February 23. [5] R. Holliman, “Representing science through multiple-channel digital television: Opportunities for dialogue, engagement and deliberation?” Proceedings of the Communicating European Research (2005) Conference, Springer, 2006, in press. [6] S. Knobloch, C. Callison, L. Chen, A. Fritzsche, D. Zillman, “Children’s sex-stereotyped self-socialisation through selective exposure to entertainment: cross cultural experiments in Germany, China and the United States,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 122-138, 2005. [7] J. Stevens Aubrey and K. Harrison, “The gender-role content of children’s favourite television programmes and its links to their gender-related perceptions,” Media Psychology, Vol. 6, pp 111-146, 2004. [8] J. Herrett-Skjellum and M. Allen, “Television programming and sex stereotyping: a meta-analysis”, Communication Yearbook, Vol, 19, pp. 157-185, 1996. [9] R. Potts and I. Martinez, “Television viewing and children’s beliefs about scientists”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 287-300, 1994. [10] G. Tuchman, A. Kaplan Daniels, and J. Walker Benét (eds.) Hearth and Home: Images of women in the mass media. Oxford University Press, New York, 1978. [11] R. Holliman, “Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception,” Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107-130, 2004; J. Kitzinger, “A sociology of media power: key issues in audience reception research,” in G. Philo (ed) Message received, Longman, Harlow, 1999. [12] For example, see C. Mason, J. Butler Kahle, A. Gardner, “Draw-a-scientist test: Future implications,” School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 193-198, 1991; C. Frayling, Mad, bad and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema, Reaktion, London, 2005.
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology
[13] J. Kelly and S. Smith, “Where the girl’s aren’t: gender disparity saturates G-rated films,” A research brief commissioned by the See Jane Program and Dad’s & Daughters, February 2006. Available online at: http://www.seejane.org/; last checked 23 March 2006; J. Steinke, “Cultural representations of gender and science,” Science Communication, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 27-63, 2005; R. Jones, “How many female scientists do you know?” Endeavour, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 84-88, 2005; E. Flicker, “Between brains and breasts – women scientists in fiction film: on the marginalization and sexualization of sexual competence, Public Understanding of Science, Vol.12, pp. 307-318, 2003; A. Elena, “Skirts in the lab: Madame Curie and the image of the woman scientist in the feature film,” Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 6, pp. 269-278, 1997. [14] Women and Work Commission, “Shaping a fairer future”, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 26, 2006, February. Available online at: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/publications/wwc_shaping_fairer_future06.pdf; last checked 23 March 2006. For the Semta (2005) Report, see reference 18. [15] Presented by two women and currently in its third series, Eureka TV is broadcast on the BBC's CBBC channel for young children (6 to 12 year olds). For more information, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/eurekatv/; last accessed 20 March 2006. [16] Produced as an Open University/BBC collaboration, Rough Science recently completed its sixth series. Each series has been presented by Kate Humble and has included female and male scientists who are set scientific challenges to complete using basic equipment. For more information about the show, see http://www.open2.net/roughscience/; last checked 23 March 2006. [17] Presented by Lisa Rogers and Robert Llewellyn, Channel 4's Scrapheap Challenge has completed eight series. For more information about the show, see http://www.channel4.com/4car/ontv/scrapheap/index.html; last checked 23 March 2006. [18] Semta – Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing, “Forensic science: Implications for Higher Education 2004”, 2005. Available online at: http://www.physsci.heacademy.ac.uk/Publications/ForensicScience/ForensicScienceReport2004.pdf; last checked 23 March 2006. [19] Cited in C. Frayling, Mad, bad and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema, Reaktion, London, 2005. [20] For example, see M. Long, G. Boiarsky, and G. Taylor, “Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television,” Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 10, pp. 255-269, 2001; M. Long and J. Steinke, “The thrill of everyday science: images of science and scientists on children’s educational science programmes in the United States, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 4, pp. 101-119, 1996. [21] The Invisible Witnesses? Project is funded by the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC for Women in SET) (for more information, see http://setwomenresource.org.uk/; last checked 23 March 2006). The UKRC for Women in SET is funded by the UK’s Department for Trade and Industry. [22] D. Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction, Sage, London, p. 59, 1993. [23] Source: Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) Ltd. Available online at: http://www.barb.co.uk/; last checked 23 March 2006. [24] The second sample was chosen to coincide with National Science Week in the UK, which is coordinated by the British Association. An annual event, the 2006 National Science Week ran from 10 to 19 March, inclusive. Further information about National Science Week is available online at: http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/NationalScienceWeek/; last checked 23 March 2006. [25] C. Dornan, “Some problems in conceptualising the issue of ‘science in the media’,” in Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E. and Yates, S. (eds.) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels, Routledge, London, p.182, emphasis in original, 1999. [26] Others have also noted the importance of fiction and drama, e.g. see reference 13. Further to this, the Public Awareness of Science and Engineering (PAWS) Network has organised a number of seminars that are relevant to these debates, including “Starring Roles for Women in Science and Engineering - More Sex, Lives and Videotape”, held at the Institute of Physics, 2005 April 11; and “Women in Science and Engineering and TV Drama - Sex, Lives and Videotape”, Held at the Institution of Electrical Engineers 2004, November 22. The PAWS home page is available at: http://www.pawsdrama.com/; last checked 23 March 2006. For discussion of the Public Awareness of Science and Engineering (PAWS) Network, see E. Nicolls, “Shaving the beard from the face of science,” Endeavour, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 49, 2005. [27] BBC TV's Horizon home page is available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/index.shtml; last checked 23 March 2006. [28] 11 programmes - six broadcast for young children and five evening news bulletins – were not included in the final sample, either because the video recording equipment failed, or because previous scheduled programmes overran. However, we note that none of these programmes were described in the TV listings as specifically including SET content. [29] Duration in hours/minutes is not exact; these figures have been rounded to the nearest five minutes. [30] See R. Holliman, B. Trench, D. Fahy, I. Basedas, G. Revuelta, U. Lederbogen, E. and Poupardin “Science in the news: a cross-cultural study of newspapers in five European countries”. Proceedings of the 7th International PCST Conference Science Communication in a Diverse World, Cape Town, South Africa, 2002. Available online at: http://www.saasta.ac.za/scicom/pcst7/holliman1.pdf; last checked 23 March 2006; and The ENSCOT Team, “ENSCOT: The European Network of Science Communication Teachers”, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 167-181, 2003. [31] For discussion of the importance of using annotated transcripts, see A. Hansen, S. Cottle, R. Negrine, C. Newbold, Mass communication research methods, MacMillan, Basingstoke, 1998. [32] G. Philo, Seeing and believing: The influence of television, Routledge, London, 1990. [33] Women and Work Commission, op cit., p. xi. This recommendation was reported in newspaper coverage – see D. Cracknell and D. Smith “TV ‘should put more women in men’s roles,” Sunday Times, p. 9, 2006, February 26. [34] The home page of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) is available at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/; last checked 23 March 2006.
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology
[35] O. Gibson, “The ad revolution will not be televised”, Guardian Unlimited: New Media, 2006, March 20, available online at: http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1735151,00.html; last checked 23 March 2006. [36] O. Gibson, “Young blog their way to a publishing revolution”, Guardian Unlimited, 2005, October 7, available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1587081,00.html; last checked 23 March 2006. [37] J. Herrett-Skjellum and M. Allen, op cit., p. 159.
The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology