class 20: revision

Sarah started this class by writing up a blank timeline: 1985 at one end of the whiteboard, 2007 at the other. She asked the class to tell her where major developments in science communication would go within it. PUS, and events such as the Bodmer report ended up at one end, with PEST at the other. You might find the overview on this page a neat summary.

I then tried to synthesise some of the rest of term one in reference to a sightly 'sensational' story on bird flu. To quote Gregory and Miller on this topic:

sensationalism and gee-whizzary... [is] not a punishment inflicted on science stories by disdainful or malicious journalists. It arises in science journalism because of the rhetorical conventions of popularization (Gregory & Miller, 1998, 116-7)

This points us towards thinking about news values, and other contextual differences between the cultures producing news language and those constructing scientific discourse. It's also worth thinking about the specific context of the issue covered - are stories on MMR a different case from 'Climate Porn'?

In some ways linked to this, I also discussed questions around science and fiction. I went through the opinions of a variety of thinkers on the topic (e.g. Russell Stannard, Joan Solomon, Rosalind Haynes) and emphasised that students should take a developed approach to considering audience effects (an issue which is worth keeping in mind across the course)

Sarah then put some of term two together, by considering each of the specific media we've looked at.

• Museums
• The Internet
• Popular Science
• Documentary
• Education

She asked the class to list specific issues relating to these media, and what topics (such as boundary work, structure, interactivity, etc) might be an issue across them.

class 10: Science in Fiction

We started the class talking about this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. We then discussed some of the symbols of science and technology suggested by the piece, before going through some more general issues of science and fiction. I also touched on narrative, although we'll talk about that issue more next term.

I mentioned David Kirby's work on "scientists on set", and I've put a link to his paper up on WebCT which is well worth reading if you are thinking about writing an essay on the topic.

Some other links to things I referenced in class:

• Jon Turney's book Frankenstein's Footsteps. It's also worth looking up this book, although I forgot to mention it in class.
• A definition of slash fiction (warning, may offend) - I don't think I made the link between fan fiction and internet communities as clearly as I should have. Fan fiction (including slash) existed before the web, but much of it is now published there. Wikipedia cites 1993 as when the first slash mailing list started.
• Harold Rheingold's book (electronic version) on early internet based communication.
• The "Buffy Studies" online journal.

The hands in the photo above are Willow's, from when she goes evil (Buffy nerds can try to work out which episode).

csi and science

We were talking about media effects a couple of weeks ago. People worry an awful lot about the effects of things like the coverage of bird flu or SARS, but I wonder whether these kind of things pass most of us by (although having said that, I did see someone on the tube the other day wearing one of those face masks - clearly flu season is upon us again). Maybe most of us non-scientists actually pick up most of our science from fiction?

And so we come to CSI. I have to confess that I'm fascinated by this show: each episode is basically the same, with different dead bodies, but I can't get enough of it. But it's not just the thrill of seeing if I can catch on to who the murderer is, or the cheesey puns (and terrible dialogue), or the innovative (when the show first started) SFX: I also think there's a great research project (or analytical essay) in the making in there. If all we knew about science came from the programme, what would we think? Well, that science provides certainty and truth, for a start. That 'evidence' never lies. And that all labs are incredibly shiny, clean and high-tech and all scientists incredibly good-looking.

I also think it's interesting that, for all the cutting-edge science and edgy camerawork, the show is basically conservative in the values it chooses to emphasise and extremely limited in the voices, people and situations it showcases. I feel like a lot of issues are reduced to black and white in it - including the 'messiness' of science; that human factor which we talked about the other day.

But then, I'm not basing this on anything but vague impressions. I would love to see someone do some proper analysis. For now, other thoughts or comments on the show?

Class 5: Considering the public and media effects

After concentrating on the production of news texts so far in the course, this week we turned our attention to their reception and consumption by audiences and publics. We started with a discussion about violent video games and the effects they might have: opinion was divided but most people thought that other factors (such as home background or upbringing) would also help define how games changed behaviour.

We then talked about two different models of the public: a 'deficit model' which was used in the more traditional PUS movement, and the public as active. Drawing on Wynne's 1991 paper (the set reading for this week), we described the importance of context in how science is recieved. These models will affect how we 'do' communication; we'll be talking more about that in a couple of weeks time.

Finally we talked briefly about effects research and the difficulties of doing it. The media may well be powerful but it's very hard to establish a causal connection between what's in the news and our attitudes, beliefs and knowledge. If anyone's interested further, you should check out McQuail (316.77 MAC on level 5 of Central Library).

If anyone's still having trouble accessing WebCT, you need to contact IC service desk (service.desk@imperial.ac.uk).

Your assignments should be back with you in two weeks time (the 20th).

And - by the way - the picture is of an empty vessel. Like the deficit model of the public...

Do violent video games make you a violent person?

And just in case you have any extra time this week, you might want to check out the BBC news coverage of a new video game, 'Bully', here. This hit the shops a couple of weeks ago and was considered controversial enough to have at least two TV interviews with the game's hapless spokesman - if you search the BBC site you might still find these online.


The fuss is because the game, set in a school, shows bullied kids fighting back with violence. Some - including bullying charities and support groups - are worried it could encourage violent behaviour in schools.

We'll be talking about the tricky subject of media effects a bit more next week. For now it's worth pondering what you think about violence in video games and the effects it has. Are games like Bully video nasties or just tongue in cheek fun?