‘I invite you to take a sip from the golden fountain and confirm these statements for yourself’: preparing undergraduate science students to publicly address pseudoscientific news

References

• Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. D., Yuan, S., & Ghannam, N. A. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caulfield, T., et al. (2020). Does debunking work? Correcting COVID-19 misinformation on social media. In C. M. Flood, V. MacDonnell, & J. Philpott (Eds.), Vulnerable: the law, policy, and ethics of COVID-19 (pp. 183–200). University of Ottawa Press.
   Google Scholar
• Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J., & Basol, M. (2021). Inoculation theory in the post truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(6), Article e12602. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constant, N., & Roberts, E. (2017). Narratives as a mode of research evaluation in citizen science: Understanding broader science communication impacts. Journal of Science Communication, 16(4), A03:1–A0318. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040203
   Google Scholar
• Cook, K., & Oliveira, A. W.. (2015). Communicating evolution: An exploration of students’ skills in an essential practice of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Cortassa, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dabbs, J. M. (1985). Temporal patterns of speech and gaze in social and intellectual conversation. In H. Giles, & R. N. St Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication and social psychology (pp. 182–198). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl 4), 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, R. M. (2003). Discussants and the quality of interactions at conferences. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01107
   Google Scholar
• Dewalt, K. M., & Dewalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Altamira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2021). Science communication training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect? Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, C. M., Murray, E. J., Beard, J., Schnoes, A. M., & Wang, M. L. (2020). Science communication in the age of misinformation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(12), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, E. F., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the demands of the workplace: Science students and written skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-8087-y
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530–544). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M. (2007). Communicating ignorance and the development of post-mining landscapes. Science Communication, 29(2), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007309103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, B. W., Tallapragada, M., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2019). The effects of the “war on science” frame on scientists’ credibility. Science Communication, 41(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018822081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dijkstra, A. (2008). Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education Research, 23(3), 454–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyn004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. (1987). Communicative competence. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheider (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 219–229). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2019). Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7656–7661. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805868115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149–181.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., Beets, B., & Brossard, D. (2020). Fact-checking as risk communication: The multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23, 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, J., Yates, S., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Models of science communication. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 128–146). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, X., Su, L. Y. F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., … Corley, E. A. (2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löfgren, R., Schoultz, J., Hultman, G., & Björklund, L. (2013). Exploratory talk in science education: Inquiry-based learning and communicative approach in primary school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/13.12.482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, N. E., Desai, S., & Gerstein, B. (2018). Working with vaccine-hesitant parents: An update. Paediatrics & Child Health, 23(8), 561–561. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxy144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, N., Yan, G., Thai, M., & Eidenbenz, S. (2012). Containment of misinformation spread in online social networks. Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1145/2380718.2380746
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W., Brown, A. O., Carroll, M. L., Blenkarn, E., Austin, B., & Bretzlaff, T. (2021). Developing undergraduate student oral science communication through video reflection. International Journal of Science Education, Part B , 11(2), 143–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orosz, G., Krekó, P., Paskuj, B., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., & Roland-Lévy, C. (2016). Changing conspiracy beliefs through rationality and ridiculing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1525. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & van Mil, M. H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports, 21(9), e51278. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rekker, R. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. doi:10.1177/0963662521989193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, V. (1996). The handbook of research in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Richter, A., Sieber, A., Siebert, J., Miczajka-Rußmann, V. L., Zabel, J., Ziegler, D., Hecker, S., & Frigerio, D. (2019). Storytelling for narrative approaches in citizen science: Towards a generalized model. Journal of Science Communication, 18(06), A02–A24. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18060202
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrigues, D. (2021). Science communication: A basic skill that needs to be developed in undergraduate and graduate programs. Sciential – McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal, 7(7), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.15173/sciential.vi7.2922
   Google Scholar
• Saffran, L., Hu, S., Hinnant, A., Scherer, L. D., & Nagel, S. C. (2020). Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative. PloS One, 15(1), e0226711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schiele, B., & Landry, A. (2012). The development of science communication studies in Canada. In B. Schiele, M. Claessens, & S. Shi (Eds.), Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends (pp. 33–63). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schoofs, L., Claeys, A. S., De Waele, A., & Cauberghe, V. (2019). The role of empathy in crisis communication: Providing a deeper understanding of how organizational crises and crisis communication affect reputation. Public Relations Review, 45(5), 101851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secko, D. M., Amend, E., & Friday, T. (2013). Four models of science journalism. Journalism Practice, 7(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.691351
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, J., Morrison, E., & Boker, J. (2004). Teaching empathy to first year medical students: evaluation of an elective literature and medicine course. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 17(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576280310001656196
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Songsil, W., Pongsophon, P., Boonsoong, B., & Clarke, A. (2019). Developing scientific argumentation strategies using revised argument-driven inquiry (rADI) in science classrooms in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(7), http://doi.org/10.14288/1.038056
   Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swire, B., & Ecker, U. (2018). Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. In B. Southwell, E. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 195–211). University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1651–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00079-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1993). Intellectual discussion in the academy as situated discourse. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, K., & Carjuzaa, J. (1993). Identity enactment in intellectual discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(3), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93123001
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. (2020). DISINFODEMIC: Deciphering COVID-19 disinformation. Policy Brief #1. Retrieved on November 10th, 2022 from: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/disinfodemic/brief1.
   Google Scholar
• Waring, H. Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 35(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3504_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. (2020). Munich security conference (WHO director-general speech). https://www.who.int/dgspeeches/detail/munich-security-conference.
   Google Scholar
• Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The “filtering effect” of teachers' beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81(2), 137–159. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<137::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar