A method for the critical analysis of science communication texts

References

• Aggarwal, V. (2013, October 24). Engineering is a man’s field: Changing a stereotype with a lesson from India. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/engineering-is-a-mane28099s-field-changing-a-stereotype-with-a-lesson-from-india/.
   Google Scholar
• Asplund, T. (2011). Metaphors in climate discourse: An analysis of Swedish farm magazines. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), https://doi.org/10.22323/2.10040201
   Google Scholar
• Brainard, S G, & Carlin, L. (1998). A Six-Year Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering and Science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369–375.
   Google Scholar
• Cullinan, M. E. (2020). Articulating geoengineering: Identifying an understanding of geoengineering technology through the Crutzen +10 Special Issue forum. Science Communication, 42(3).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delicado, A., Rowland, J., & Estevens, J. (2021). Bringing back the debate on mediated and unmediated science communication: The public's perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE, 11(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research (1st ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2009). Language and globalization. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14033–14039. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1984). The order of discourse. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), The language of politics. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547097018003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giordano, S., & Chung, Y. (2018). The story is there is no story: Media framing of synthetic biology and its implications in the New York Times (2005-2015).
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. University Park Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. (2020). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Feminist theory reader (pp. 303–310). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and” strong objectivity”. Social Research, 59(3), 567–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera-Lima, S., & Segura, D. M. (2018). Promised future and possible future: Science communication and technology at World’s Fairs and theme parks. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3), https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180302
   Google Scholar
• Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2014). The discourse reader (3rd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices and New protocols for critical discourse analysis in organization studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1194–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00884.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalf, H. (2017, May 22). Science must clean up its act. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/science-must-clean-up-its-act/.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielson, K. H., Kjaer, C. R., & Dahlgaard, J. (2007). Scientists and science communication: A Danish survey. Journal of Communication, 6(1).
   Google Scholar
• Pepermans, Y., & Maeseele, P. (2016). The politicization of climate change: problem or solution? WIRES Climate Change, 7(4), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.405
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, New practices (pp. 71–92). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Poliakkoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufle, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13585–13592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86(1), 79–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamou, A. G., Lefkaditou, A., Schizas, D., & Stamou, G. P. (2009). The discourse of environmental information. Science Communication, 31(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009335347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 26–56). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–104). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse anlayis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1–33). Sage.
   Google Scholar