SemesterFall Semester, 2020
DepartmentCollege of Communication Specialized Subjects for Freshman and Sophomore Majors
Course NameControversial Science, Media, and the Public
InstructorSHIH TSUNG-JEN
Credit3.0
Course TypeElective
Prerequisite
Course Objective
Course Description
Course Schedule





















































































1—0918



Course introduction



Why science communication matters?



2—0925



The importance of public communication of science




  1. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193.

  2. Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2012). Scientists’ intuitive failures. Scientists, July. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32384/title/Opinion--Scientists--Intuitive-Failures/



Recommended:




  1. Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14040-14047.



 



3—1002



Mid-Autumn Festival (Holiday)



4—1009



National Day (Holiday)



5—1016



Challenges to the popularization of science




  1. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12009

  2. Walsh, L. (2015). The Double-edged sword of popularization: The role of science communication research in the Popsci.com comment shutoff. Science Communication, 37(5), 658-669. doi: 10.1177/1075547015581928



 



How do people form opinions about science?



6—1023



Judgmental shortcuts




  1. Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audience form attitudes toward emerging technology. Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20-25.

  2. Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.



7—1030



Cultural cognition and public perception




  1. Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(7279), 296-297.

  2. 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.



 



8—1106



Framing




  1. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. doi: 10.3200/envt.51.2.12-23

  2. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing Science. Science, 316(5821), 56. Doi: 10.1126/science.1142030



 



9—1113



Emotion (mid-term exam distributed)




  1. Weber, E. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1), 103-120. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3



 



Media, information, and science



10—1120



The role of social media




  1. Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. Doi: 10.1126/science.1232329

  2. Ladwig, P., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Shaw, B. (2010). Narrowing the nano discourse? Materials Today, 13(5), 52-54. Doi: 10.1016/s1369-7021(10)70084-5



 



11—1127



Pop movies—the day after tomorrow




  1. Leiserowitz, A. (2004). Before and After The Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception. Environment (Washington DC), 46(9), 24-37.



Recommended:




  1. Kirby, D. (2008). Hollywood Knowledge: Communication Between Scientific and Entertainment Cultures. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts (pp. 165-180): Springer Netherlands.



 



12—1204



Media and public attitudes toward scientific issues




  1. Shih, T. & Lin, C. (forthcoming). Developing communication strategies for mitigating actions against global warming: Linking framing and a dual processing model. Environmental Communication.

  2. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.



 



13—1211



Documentary screening



14—1218



Final presentation



15—1225



Final presentation



16—0101



New Year (Holiday)



17—0108



No class (Working week 1)



18—0115



No class (Working week 2)



Teaching Methods
Teaching Assistant
Requirement/Grading

  1. Attendance (10% )

  2. Class participation (20%). It is not enough that you just come to the class. You are expected to finish the readings and critically discuss their contents. Your active participation is very important and your grade will also be based on contributions to seminar discussion.

  3. Discussant (35%). Each students should serve as discussion leaders in this class.

  4. Final project presentation (35%). All students will present a case study as part of the course requirement. In this presentation, you will apply the concept(s) discussed in this course to a risk issue in your country. For example, you can talk about why GM food is or is not an issue in your country. Or you can discuss why people in different countries have different levels of concern about climate change. The presentations will be scheduled from week 14 to week 15.


Textbook & Reference
Urls about Course
Attachment

2020 Fall_controversial science, media, and the public_Syllabus.pdf