Difference between revisions of "Armon2017"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516648532
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516648532
 
|DOI=10.1177/0963662516648532
 
|DOI=10.1177/0963662516648532
|Abstract=The news media form major sources of information to the general public in matters of science and health. And yet journalists and experts differ in what they consider as newsworthy and relevant. This article analyses in detail a current affair interview with a health expert reporting on a new research on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Applying Bamberg’s three-level model for positioning analysis, the interview is searched for the stories that speakers introduce, attend to their embedding in the design of questions and answers and examine how their tellers are positioned therein as knowledgeable regarding ADHD. The narratives identified are shown to enable the adopting and shifting between various expert positions including that of the scientific researcher, the advice-giving expert and the more specific identity of the public health clinician. Shifts between these positions are shown to reflect the claims and counter-claims that the interviewee and interviewers are making and backing. These findings are discussed for their implications regarding the use of narratives in presenting science to media audiences.
+
|Abstract=The public communication of science and technology largely depends on its framing in the news media, but scientists’ role in this process has only been explored indirectly. This study focuses on storied accounts told by scientists when asked to present their research or provide expert advice in the course of a news interview. A total of 150 items from a current affairs talk show broadcast in the Israeli media were explored through a methodology combining narrative and conversation analysis. Using the concept of framing as originally proposed by Erving Goffman, we show that researchers use personal accounts as a way of reframing news stories introduced by the program hosts. Elements of method and rationale, which are usually considered technical and are shunned in journalistic reports, emerged as a crucial element in the accounts that experts themselves provided. The implications for framing research and science communication training are discussed.
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 03:05, 22 June 2016

Armon2017
BibType ARTICLE
Key Armon2016
Author(s) R. Armon, A. Baram-Tsabari
Title Our findings, my method: Framing science in televised interviews
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, television, conversation analysis, framing, media and science, narrative, science experts, television
Publisher SAGE Publications
Year 2016
Language
City
Month jun
Journal Public Understanding of Science
Volume
Number
Pages
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/0963662516648532
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

The public communication of science and technology largely depends on its framing in the news media, but scientists’ role in this process has only been explored indirectly. This study focuses on storied accounts told by scientists when asked to present their research or provide expert advice in the course of a news interview. A total of 150 items from a current affairs talk show broadcast in the Israeli media were explored through a methodology combining narrative and conversation analysis. Using the concept of framing as originally proposed by Erving Goffman, we show that researchers use personal accounts as a way of reframing news stories introduced by the program hosts. Elements of method and rationale, which are usually considered technical and are shunned in journalistic reports, emerged as a crucial element in the accounts that experts themselves provided. The implications for framing research and science communication training are discussed.

Notes