Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T22:23:36.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: From “The Popularization of Science through Film” to “The Public Understanding of Science”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2018

Fernando Vidal
Fernando Vidal*
Affiliation:
ICREA (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies); and CEHIC (Center for the History of Science), Autonomous University of Barcelona E-mail: [email protected]://icrea.academia.edu/FVidal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Science in film, and usual equivalents such as science on film or science on screen, refer to the cinematographic representation, staging, and enactment of actors, information, and processes involved in any aspect or dimension of science and its history. Of course, boundaries are blurry, and films shot as research tools or documentation also display science on screen. Nonetheless, they generally count as scientific film, and science in and on film or screen tend to designate productions whose purpose is entertainment and education. Moreover, these two purposes are often combined, and inherently concern empirical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated with popularization, science communication, and the public understanding of science. It is in these areas that the notion of the deficit model emerged to designate a point of view and a mode of understanding, as well as a set of practical and theoretical problems about the relationship between science and the public.

Type
Introduction
Information
Science in Context , Volume 31 , Issue 1: Science in Film and the Deficit Model , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, Martin W. 2009. “The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science: Discourse and Comparative Evidence.” Science, Technology & Society 14 (2):221–240.Google Scholar
Bauer, Martin W. 2016. “Results of the Essay Competition on the ‘Deficit Concept.’” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):398–399.Google Scholar
Besley, John C., and Nisbet, Matthew. 2011. “How Scientists View the Public, the Media and the Political Process.” Public Understanding of Science 22 (6):644–659.Google Scholar
Besson, Rémy, and Leblanc, Audrey, eds. 2009. La Part de fiction dans les images documentaires (= Conserveries mémorielles, n° 6), http://journals.openedition.org/cm/331 (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Bonah, Christian, and Laukötter, Anja. 2009. “Moving Pictures and Medicine in the First Half of the 20th Century: Some Notes on International Historical Developments and the Potential of Medical Film Research.” Gesnerus 66 (1):121–146.Google Scholar
Brossard, Dominique, and Lewenstein, Bruce V.. 2010. “A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory.” In Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, edited by Kahlor, LeeAnn and Stout, Patricia A., 11–39. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano. 2008. “Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science.” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by Bucchi, Massimiano and Trench, Brian, 57–76. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano, and Neresini, Federico. 2002. “Biotech Remains Unloved by the More Informed.” Nature 416:261.Google Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano, and Neresini, Federico. 2004. “Why Are People Hostile to Biotechnologies?” Science 304:1749.Google Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano, and Neresini, Federico. 2007. “Science and Public Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Hackett, Edward J., Amsterdamska, Olga, Lynch, Michael and Wajcman, Judy, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano, and Trench, Brian. 2014. “Science Communication Research: Themes and Challenges.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd ed.), edited by Bucchi, Massimiano and Trench, Brian, 1–14. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Callon, Michel. 1999. “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.” Science, Technology & Society 4 (1):81–94.Google Scholar
Canales, Jimena. 2011. “Desired Machines: Cinema and the World in Its Own Image.” Science in Context 24 (3):329–359.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Lisa. 1995. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine's Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Corner, John. 2015. “Documentary Realism.” In The Television Genre Book, edited by Creeber, Glen, 148–150. London: Palgrave on behalf of the British Film Institute.Google Scholar
Cortassa, Carina. 2010. “Del déficit al diálogo, ¿y después? Una reconstrucción crítica de los estudios de comprensión pública de la ciencia.” Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad–CTS 15 (5):47–72.Google Scholar
Cortassa, Carina. 2016. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of a Public Deficit Always Return? The Eternal Recurrence of the Public Deficit.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):447–459.Google Scholar
Cottingham, Marci D., and Fisher, Jill A.. 2017. “From Fantasy to Reality: Managing Biomedical Risk Emotions in and through Fictional Media.” Health, Risk & Society 19 (5-6):284–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daston, Lorraine. 2009. “Science Studies and the History of Science.” Critical Inquiry 35:798–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter, and Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “Dismantling Boundaries in Science and Technology Studies.” Isis 10 (4):759–774.Google Scholar
DeBoer, George E. 2000. “Scientific Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (6):582–601.Google Scholar
Dudo, Anthony, and Besley, John C.. 2016. “Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.” PLoS ONE 11 (2):e0148867.Google Scholar
Dugan, David. 2014. “Science Story Telling in TV Documentaries.” Actas d'Història de la Ciència i de la Tècnica 7:35–49.Google Scholar
Einsiedel, Edna. 2007. “Editorial: Of Publics and Science.” Public Understanding of Science 16 (1):5–6.Google Scholar
Elton, Arthur, and Road, Sinclair. 1949. The Popularization of Science Through Film. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=154263&set=48F9D9DB01&gp=1&lin=1 (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Fisher, Jill A., and Cottingham, Marci D.. 2017. “This Isn't Going to End Well: Fictional Representations of Medical Research in Television and Film.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (5):564–578.Google Scholar
Florensa, Clara, Hochadel, Oliver, and Tabernero, Carlos. 2014. “Science on Television: Theory Meets Practice. An Introduction.” Actes d'Història de la Ciència i de la Tècnica 7:11–16.Google Scholar
Funk, Cary, and Rainie, Lee. 2015. “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society.” www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Gouyon, Jean-Baptiste. 2016a. “1985, Scientists Can't Do Science Alone, They Need Publics.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (6):754–757.Google Scholar
Gouyon, Jean-Baptiste. 2016b. “Science and Film-making.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (1):17–30.Google Scholar
Gouyon, Jean-Baptiste. 2016c. “‘You Can't Make a Film About Mice Just by Going Out into a Meadow and Looking at Mice’: Staging as Knowledge Production in Natural History Film-making.” In Staging Science: Scientific Performance on Street, Stage and Screen, edited by Willis, Martin, 83–103. London: Palgrave Macmillan CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepp, Andreas, Hjarvard, Stig, and Lundby, Knut. 2015. “Mediatization: Theorizing the Interplay between Media, Culture and Society.” Media, Culture & Society 37 (2):314–324.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen. 1990. “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.” Social Studies of Science 20:519–539.Google Scholar
Horst, Maja, and Michael, Mike. 2011. “On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-thinking Science Communication as ‘Event.’” Science As Culture 20 (3):283–306.Google Scholar
Irwin, Alan. 2014. “From Deficit to Democracy (Re-Visited).” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1):71–76.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41:223–244.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Peters, Ellen, Wittlin, Maggie, Slovic, Paul, Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Bramans, Donald, and Mandel, Gregory. 2012. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change 2:732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, David. 2016. “Film, Radio, and Television.” In Companion to the History of Science, edited by Lightman, Bernard, 428–441. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2006. “Microcinematography and the History of Science and Film.” Isis 97 (1):121–132.Google Scholar
Laugksch, Rüdiger. 2000. “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview.” Science Education 84 (1):71–94.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Nicola J. 2009. “Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model.” In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Chichester: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005862.pub2.Google Scholar
Miller, Jon D. 1983. “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review.” Daedalus 112 (2): 29–48.Google Scholar
Montserrat Rosell, Ana. 2014. “Science Television Is Just Television.” Actas d'Història de la Ciència i de la Tècnica 7:113–126.Google Scholar
NAS 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Science Board. 2016. “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding.” In Science & Engineering Indicators 2016, chap. 7. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Nieto-Galan, Agustí. 2016. Science in the Public Sphere: A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Translated by Kelso, Fiona. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Palmer, Sarah E., and Schibeci, Renato A.. 2017. “What Conceptions of Science Communication Are Espoused by Science Research Funding Bodies?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (5):511–527.Google Scholar
Petrelli, Nico. 2003. “The Crisis of the ‘Public Understanding of Science’ in Great Britain.” JCOM-Journal of Science Communication 2 (1). https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/02/01/F020101 (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Rainie, Lee, and Funk, Cary. 2015. “An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views.” www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Requarth, Tim. 2017. “Scientists, Stop Thinking Explaining Science Will Fix Things.” Slate, 19 April. http://www.slate.com/articles/healthandscience/science/2017/04/explainingsciencewontfixinformationilliteracy.html (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Ritzmann, Iris, Schmutz, Hans-Konrad, and Wolff, Eberhard. 2009. “Film und Wissenschaft: Übergänge, Zusammenhänge und Parallelitäten. Eine Einführung.” Gesnerus 66 (1):7–14.Google Scholar
“Science on Film.” 2009. Nature Physics 5:703.Google Scholar
Secord, James A. 2004. “Knowledge in Transit.” Isis 95 (4):654–672.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1990. “Science and the Public.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by Olby, R. C., Cantor, G. N., Christie, J. R. R., and Hodge, M. J. S., 990–1007. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simis, Molly J., Madden, Haley, Cacciatore, Michael A., and Yeo, Sara K.. 2016. “The Lure of Rationality: Why Does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication?” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):400–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturgis, Patrick, and Allum, Nick. 2004. “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes.” Public Understanding of Science 13:55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suldowsky, Brianne. 2016. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of the Public Deficit Always Return? Exploring Key Influences.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):415–426.Google Scholar
The Royal Society. 1985. “The Public Understanding of Science.” Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society [Bodmer Report]. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/RoyalSocietyContent/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
TNS. 2010. Eurobarometer 73.1: Biotechnology. Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social for the European Commission. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social. ec.europa.eu/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs341en.pdf (last accessed December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1995. The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Topham, Jonathan R. 2009. “Focus: Historicizing ‘Popular Science’ – Introduction.” Isis 100:310–318.Google Scholar
Trench, Brian. 2008. “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, edited by Cheng, Donghong, Claessens, Michel, Gascoigne, Toss, Metcalfe, Jenni, Schiele, Bernard, and Shi, Shunke, 119–135. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Weingart, Peter. 2005. “Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit und die Öffentlichkeit der Wissenschaft.” In Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit: Essays zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit, edited by Weingart, Peter, 9–33. Weilerswist: Velbrück.Google Scholar
Wellmann, Janina. 2011. “Introduction: Science and Cinema.” Science in Context 24 (3):311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 1991. “Knowledges in Context.” Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (1):111–121.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 1995. “Public Understanding of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, revised ed., edited by Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald E., sPetersen, James C., and Pinch, Trevor, 361–388. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ziman, John. 1991. “Public Understanding of Science.” Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (1):99–105.Google Scholar