How Does Television Represent Science? This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Education in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Research in Education Copyright 2010 Richard Zurawski Acknowledgement I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Professor Andy Manning for his many, many hours of instruction, encouragement and patience, through the weekly meetings where we thrashed out my prejudices, inconsistencies and biases from my work, as I waded back into academics after a thirty year absence. Learning that opinion is not enough was hard lesson for me, but Professor Manning with great patience and humour walked me through the rigours and process of the many rewrites and revisions of this thesis. I would also like to thank Professor Paula Romanow, my long time friend, colleague and teacher for her patience and for humouring me on this long journey away from the absolute world of the objective into the oft times slippery subjective slopes. I would also like to thank Professor Fred French, for being on my thesis committee. My thanks also to Ruth Ann Brown for all the emails, co-ordination, setting up of meetings, making all the paperwork happen; and all with a smile. To my Mother, thank you for the encouragement, love of learning and all her wonderful support. No acknowledgement would be complete without me thanking my beautiful wife Susan, for the encouragement to go back to school, to fulfil my dreams and to show me its just hard work, patience and following one step after the other. She is my inspiration, my best friend and my greatest supporter. ii Lastly my thanks and recognition of all those who participated in this study, who made the time and generously gave of their opinions, perspectives and wisdom. iii Abstract This thesis examines the relationship between science and television by working within the framework of Grounded Theory, extracting data from a literature review and a series of interviews with scientists, television scientists and broadcast science producers, and then examining the collected data through a perspective provided by the works of Noam Chomsky, Marshall McLuhan and George Lakoff. My analysis of the data concludes that science as represented by scientists and science as represented by television production are two solitudes. In spite of the fact, that both scientists and science broadcaster/producers work within a milieu each group defines as “science”, neither understands the perspective or the concerns of the other. In addition, generally, there is a marked distain between the two groups based on the other’s perspective of what is considered to be science. Each group works within an institutional framework that is self serving and isolated from the other. Though there have been efforts to bring these two groups together to find common ground, they are marked more by their failures than their successes. The major science issues facing us as a society, especially with crises such as anthropogenic global warming, underscore the seriousness of this divide as it relates to the public’s general low level of science, the growing lack of appreciation of the importance of science education and the loss of respect for scientists and science. iv These findings are helpful in getting a better understanding of the oft overlooked place that science has in society and its importance to the health of our society. If common ground can be found, not only scientists and science broadcaster/producers, but society has a lot to gain. These two groups are encouraged to connect with each other and find solutions to bridging the divide that has grown between them. v List of Illustrations! ix Prologue! 1 Chapter 1: Background to Study! 11 1.1 Introduction! 11 1.2 Television! 12 1.3 Science and Scientific Method! 15 1.4 Journalistic Method! 19 1.5 Science Programming on Television! 23 1.6 Why It Is Important! 28 Chapter 2: Literature review! 34 2.1 Introduction! 34 2.2 “Lens” Through Which to View the Literature Review Data! 35 2.2.1. Marshall McLuhan! 37 2.2.2 Noam Chomsky! 38 2.2.3 George Lakoff! 40 2.2.4 Conclusion of the Lens! 44 2.3 Analysis of the Papers of the Literature Review! 46 2.4 Summary Literature Review! 63 Chapter 3: Method! 67 3.1 How the Questions Were Addressed &Why! 67 3.2 Selection of Interviewees and Categorization of Interviewees! 70 3.3 The Format of the Questions and the Nature of the Interviews! 74 3.4 The Analyses! 75 3.5 Interview Questions! 76 1. What are your thoughts about science and television?! 77 2. What do you think of the amount of science on television?! 77 3. What do you think of the quality of the science on television?! 78 4. As television evolves from being primarily network broadcast to internet on line broadcast, do you think this affects how television programmes about science are made for television? Is it different?! 78 5. Does television have an effect on educational choices? If so how?! 79 6. How are scientists portrayed? Positively? Negatively?! 79 7. Does science, as portrayed on television, affect how we see science issues such as climate change?! 79 8. Do you think climate change is anthropogenic, human caused?! 80 9. Does science on television represent science the ways scientists represent science? Do you think it should?! 80 Chapter 4: Analysis of the Interviews! 82 4.1 The First Analysis! 83 1. “What are your thoughts about science and television?”! 83 2. “What do you think of the amount of science on television?”! 89 vi 3. “What do you think of the quality of the science on television?”! 96 4. “As television evolves from being primarily network broadcast to internet on line broadcast, do you think this affects how television programmes about science are made for television? Is it different?”! 102 5. “Does television have an effect on educational choices? If so how?”! 109 6. “How are scientists portrayed? Positively? Negatively?”! 115 7. “Does science, as portrayed on television, affect how we see science issues such as climate change?”! 118 8. “Do you think climate change is anthropogenic, human caused?”! 123 9. “Does science on television represent science the way scientists represent science? Do you think it should?”! 124 4.2 Summary of the First analysis! 129 Chapter 5: Major Themes Emerging from the Interview Data! 133 5.1 Theme Introductions! 133 5.2 The Disconnect Between Science and Television! 135 5.2.1 Scientific Method and Peer Review! 136 5.2.2 The Medium is the Message! 138 5.2.3 How The Makeup of Our Brains is Related to “The Medium is the Message”! 140 5.2.4 The Education Gap! 142 5.2.5 Mature vs Evolving! 144 5.2.6 A Bridge! 145 5.3 Consolidation vs Diversification According to Noam Chomsky! 148 5.3.1 How Consolidation and Diversification of Television Effects Science on Television! 150 5.3.2 Effects of Television Consolidation on Television Science Stories! 151 5.3.3 Symptoms of Consolidation! 152 5.3.4 The Daily Planet and a Diversified Television Environment! 157 5.3.5 Consolidation vs Diversification Summary! 160 5.4 The Language Difference Between Scientists and Science on Television! 162 5.4.1 George Lakoff! 163 5.4.2 Differences In How Words Are Used By Scientists vs Science On Television! 164 5.4.3 Language Summary! 171 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions! 173 6.1 Introduction! 173 6.2 Conclusion One - Twin Solitudes! 174 6.2.1 Scientific Method vs Television Science! 175 6.2.2 Different Medium - Different Method! 181 6.2.3 Business Interests vs Scientific Interests! 183 6.3 Consolidation vs Diversification in Television! 183 6.3.1 News Vs Documentaries! 184 6.3.2 Dumbing Down and Science Generalizations! 185 6.4 When Language Becomes a Barrier to Communication! 186 6.4.1 Vested Interests and Deliberately Creating Confusion! 186 6.5 Education and its Relationship with Television Science! 188 6.5.1 Positive and Negative Feedback! 192 6.5.2 Implications! 193 6.6 Responsibilities! 195 6.7 Shortcomings of the Study and Areas for Further Study! 197 vii Appendix A - Letter of Consent for Interviews! 200 Appendix B - FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions! 202 Bibliography and References! 206 viii List of Illustrations Scientific Method Diamond!! ! ! ! ! ! Page 14 Journalistic Method!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page 18 Science Television programming Triangle!! ! ! ! Page 21 What is Science? Quadrilateral!! ! ! ! ! ! Page 22 ix Prologue “The television business is a cruel and shallow money trench; a long, plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.” Hunter S. Thompson I had already been involved in television science broadcasting for some 15 years when I had a small epiphany that set me on the road that has led sometimes slowly, sometimes inexorably to this Masters thesis. About fifteen years ago I was attending the 2nd annual World Congress of Science Producers, a small collection of broadcasters, producers and programmers who got together once a year to exchange anecdotes, programming ideas, commission new science stories and enjoy a glass of wine and some good food. It was my first year and the conference was in Montreal. There were perhaps 100 in all in attendance, with representative from broadcasters of science programming as well as producers and the congress lasted a total of 4 days. I had just made the leap into independent production after a long tenure at both CBC and CTV as a science reporter, weathercaster, science writer, host and creator of the nationally syndicated children’s science show, “Wonder Why?”.