1—0918 | Course introduction | Why science communication matters? | 2—0925 | The importance of public communication of science
- Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193.
- 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:
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audience form attitudes toward emerging technology. Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20-25.
- Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.
| 7—1030 | Cultural cognition and public perception
- Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(7279), 296-297.
- 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
- 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
- Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing Science. Science, 316(5821), 56. Doi: 10.1126/science.1142030
| 9—1113 | Emotion (mid-term exam distributed)
- 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
- Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. Doi: 10.1126/science.1232329
- 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
- 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:
- 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
- Shih, T. & Lin, C. (forthcoming). Developing communication strategies for mitigating actions against global warming: Linking framing and a dual processing model. Environmental Communication.
- 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) |
|