Cover not available
Part of
Science Communication in Times of Crisis
Edited by Pascal Hohaus
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 96] 2022
► pp. 1–14

Chapter 1
Communicating science in crisis societies

Challenges across disciplines, contexts and nations

| Leibniz University Hannover
Article outline
  • The research context of this volume
  • The structure of this volume
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.96.01hoh
References (57)
References
Aikenhead, Glen. 2001. “Science Communication with the Public: A Cross-Cultural Event.” In Science Communication in Theory and Practice, ed. by Stocklmayer, Susan M., Michael M. Gore and Chris Bryant, 23–45. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple. 2017. The Discourse of News Values. How News Organizations Create Newsworthiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beger, Anke, and Thomas H. Smith (eds.). 2020. How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benoit, William L. 2020. “Image repair theory.” In Crisis Communication, ed. by Finn Frandsen, and Winni Johansen, 105–119. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brüggemann, Michael, Ines Lörcher, and Stefanie Walter. 2020. “Post-normal Science Communication. Exploring the Blurring Boundaries of Science and Journalism.” Journal of Science Communication 19 (3): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano and Brian Trench (eds). 2014. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge: Milton Park. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucher, Hans-Jürgen. 2019. “The contribution of media studies to the understanding of science communication.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 51–76. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burns, Terry, John O’Connor, and Susan Stocklmayer. 2003. “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition.” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2): 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel. 1999. “The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge.” Science Technology & Society 4 (1): 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coombs, W. Timothy. 2020. “Situational crisis communication theory: Influences, provenance, evolution, and prospects.” In Crisis Communication, ed. by Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen, 121–140. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Rycker, Antoon, and Zuraidah Mohd Don (eds.) 2013. Discourse and Crisis. Critical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga, Martin Adam, Renata Povolná, and Radek Vogel. 2020. Persuasion in specialised discourses. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
d’Andrea, Luciano, and Andrea Declich. 2005. “The sociological nature of science communication.” Journal of Science Communication 4 (2): 1–9.Google Scholar
Dunwoody, Sharon. 2019. “Science journalism.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 417–438. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felt, Ulrike and Sarah R. Davies. 2020. Exploring Science Communication: A Science and Technology Studies Approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischoff, Baruch. 2019. “Evaluating science communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (16): 7670–7675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frandsen, F., and Winni Johansen. 2017. Organizational Crisis Communication: A Multivocal Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Franzen, Martina. 2019. “Reconfigurations of science communication research in the digital age.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 603–624. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gascoigne, Toss, Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi. 2010. “Is science communication its own field?” Journal of Science Communication 9 (3): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gloning, Thomas. 2019. “Historical perspectives on internal scientific communication.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal, and Thomas Gloning, 547–568. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gottschling, Markus, and Olaf Kramer. 2021. “Recontextualized Knowledge. Introduction: A Rhetorical View on Science Communication.” In Recontextualized Knowledge: Rhetoric – Situation – Science Communication, ed. by Olaf Kramer, and Markus Gottschling, 1–16. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gropp, Robert. 2006. “Teaching the Public about Science.” BioScience 56 (2): 91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauska, Monika. 2019. “Historical aspects of external science communication.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 585–600. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Richard, and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Friederike, and Dorothe Kienhues. 2019. “Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: contributions from psychological and educational research.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 29–50. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde, and Dániel Czicza. 2017. “Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Ein Modellierungsvorschlag.” Fachsprache 33 (1–2): 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, Maja, Sarah R. Davies, and Alan Irwin. 2017. “Reframing Science Communication.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 881–907. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Mimi, and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen (eds.). 2020. The Language of Crisis. Metaphors, frames and discourses. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Dietram A. Scheufele and Dan Kahan (eds). 2017. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janich, Nina. 2019. “The contribution of linguistics and semiotics to the understanding of science communication.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Annette, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 143–166. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janich, Nina, and Nina Kalwa. 2018. “Wissenschaftskommunikation.” In Handbuch Pragmatik, ed. By Frank Liedtke, and Astrid Tuchen, 413–422. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Edgar W. 2013. “The ‘nature of science’ in the school curriculum: the great survivor.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 45 (2): 132–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmerle, Joachim. 2021. “How Layperson Process Health News Articles.” In Recontextualized Knowledge: Rhetoric – Situation – Science Communication, ed. by Olaf Kramer, and Markus Gottschling, 169–182. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leßmöllmann, Annette, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning (eds). 2019. Science Communication. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leßmöllmann, Annette and Thomas Gloning, Thomas. 2019. “Introduction to the volume.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, XI–XX. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luzón, María José, and Carmen Pérez-Llantada (eds.). 2019. Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüthje, Corinna. 2017. “Field-specific mediatization: Testing the combination of social theory and mediatization theory using the example of scientific communication.” Mediatization Studies 1 (1): 45–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mar, Florie Anne, Jose Ordovas-Montanes, Nir Oksenberg, Alexander M. Olson. 2016. “The Whiteboard Revolution: Illuminating Science Communication in the Digital Age.” Trends in Immunology 37 (4): 250–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matus-Mendoza, Mariadelaluz, and Antoon De Rycker. 2013. “Mexico City and the H1N1 health crisis. The discursive interconnectedness of viruses, murders, policy fiascos and tumbling pesos.” In Discourse and Crisis: Critical perspectives, ed. by Antoon De Rycker and Zuraidah Mohd Don, 395–433. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Megan Bang. 2014. “The cultural side of science communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (4): 13621–13626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose. 2019. Science Communication Online. Engaging Experts and Public on the Internet. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, Jennifer Ellen. 2019. “Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data.” Public Understanding of Science 28 (4): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Marcus. 2021. “Necessity, Norm and Missing Knowledge. What Modals Tell Us About Crisis Response in German COVID-19 Reporting.” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 51 (3): 421–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolescu, Basarab. 2014. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Indisciplinarity, and Transdisciplinarity: Similarities and Differences.” In Minding the Gap: Working Across Disciplines in Environmental Studies, ed. by Rob Emmett, and Frank Zelko, 19–26. Munich: Rachel Carson Center.Google Scholar
O’Mara-Shimek, Michael. 2020. “Crisis Marketing through conceptual ontology in metaphor in financial reporting. ‘Decision’, ‘change’ … and Right to Information?” In The Language of Crisis. Metaphors, frames and discourses, ed. by Mimi Huang, and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, 23–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearce, Amy, Aldemaro RomeroJr., and John B. Zibluk. 2009. “An Interdisciplinary Approach to Science Communication Education. A Case Study.” In Communication Science, ed. by LeeAnn Kahlor, and Patricia A. Stout, 235–252. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rasulić, Katarina. 2020. “Turning the heart into a neighbour (Re)framing Kosovo in Serbian political discourse.” In The Language of Crisis. Metaphors, frames and discourses, ed. by Mimi Huang, and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, 111–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reincke, Cathelijne M., Annelien L. Bredenoord, and Marc H. W. van Mil. 2020. “From deficit to dialogue inscience communication. The dialogue communication model requires additional roles from scientists.” EMBO reports 21 (e51278): 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, Dietram A. 2014. “Science Communication as political communication.” Proceedings of the Nationa Academy of Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid-Petri, Hannah and Moritz Bürger. 2019. “Modeling science communication: from linear to more complex models.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal und Thomas Gloning, 105–122. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuster, Britt-Marie. 2019. “The contribution of terminology research to the understanding of science communication.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal und Thomas Gloning, 167–186. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Mike S., Sabrina H. Kessler, and Birte Fähnrich. 2019. “Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence.” In Science Communication, ed. by Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal and Thomas Gloning, 77–104. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2021. “‘Not Soldiers but Fire-fighters’ – Metaphors and Covid-19.” Health Communication 36 (1): 50–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmerling, Anne, and Nina Janich. 2016. “Rhetorical functions of a ‘language of uncertainty’ in the mass media.” In Public Understanding of Science 25 (8): 961–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, Augusto. 2020. “From economic crisis to austerity policies through conceptual metaphor. A corpus-based comparison of metaphors of crisis and austerity in the Portuguese press.” In The Language of Crisis. Metaphors, frames and discourses, ed. by Mimi Huang, and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, 51–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, Stefanie. 2020. “‘Today, the long Arab winter has begun to thaw’ A corpus-assisted discourse study of conceptual metaphors in political speeches about the Arab revolutions.” In The Language of Crisis. Metaphors, frames and discourses, ed. by Mimi Huang, and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, 137–186. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar