126,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Media coverage of scientific issues is a highly complex process. It involves making a specialized field accessible to the general public, without necessarily disseminating the associated scientific terms or knowledge. The terminological interactions between press discourses and scientific knowledge are presented within the field of agroecology. The analysis of textual data focuses on articles in the general press in French and English, devoted to plant protection practices using natural mechanisms (biological control). This book provides a terminological and cognitive overview of the issues involved in popularizing science in a rapidly expanding field, and of the challenges to be met in the constantly evolving environmental communication sector.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 357
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction
PART 1: The Challenge of Popularizing Science
Introduction to Part 1
1 The Dialogue Between Science and Society
1.1. The popularizing project
1.2. Science in the media and the multiplicity of actors
1.3. Scientific and media approaches to popularization
2 Discourses on Science
2.1. Genres in scientific communication
2.2. Scientific discourse
2.3. Scientific media discourse
3 Theoretical and Methodological Tools for Analysis
3.1. Identification and categorization of names and designations
3.2. Characterization of objects of discourse
PART 2: Science in the Media: Agroecology in the Daily Press
Introduction to Part 2
4 An Introduction to Agroecology
4.1. Presentation of biological control
4.2. Media discourse under study
5 Names and Designations of Discourse Objects
5.1. Designations of plant protection methods
5.2. Designations of agents and plant protection products
6 Characterization of Discourse Objects
6.1. Crossed perspectives on methods and products
6.2. Simplified look at methods and products
PART 3: Challenges in the Mediation of Agroecological Issues
Introduction to Part 3
7 Terminological and Cognitive Issues
7.1. Designations and specialization
7.2. Binarism and cognitive bias
8 Challenges in Agroecology
8.1. A shared responsibility
8.2. Scientific mediation
Conclusion
Glossary
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Science, Society and New Technologies
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 3
Table 3.1. Denominative variation from the term “biological control”...
Table 3.2. Markers of coordinated antonymy
Table 3.3. Markers of comparative antonymy
Table 3.4. Markers of transition antonymy
Table 3.5. Markers of negation antonymy
Chapter 5
Table 5.1. Designation paradigm for control methods (French/English)
Table 5.2. Designation paradigm for biological control agents
Table 5.3. Designation paradigm for biocontrol products
Chapter 7
Table 7.1. Competitive designations of chemical products and methods
Chapter 8
Table 8.1. Use of how and what in PLS titles
Table 8.2. Use of the you/your pronoun
Table 8.3. Mention of the persons or citizens concerned
Table 8.4. Development of complex terms from prepositional structures
Table 8.5. Development of complex terms from relative structures
Table 8.6. Lexicalized presentations of numerical comparisons
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Continuum of methods and practices in science popularization (from...
Figure 2.2. Continuum of discursive productions about science (from Kristianse...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Reproduction and adaptation of Figure 1 (from Eilenberg et al. 200...
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Begin Reading
Conclusion
Glossary
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Science, Society and New Technologies
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Communication, Environment, Science and Society Set
coordinated byAndrea Catellani and Céline Pascual Espuny
Volume 2
Popularizing Science
The Complex Terminological Interactions between Scientific and Press Discourses within the Field of Agroecology
Hélène Ledouble
First published 2024 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2024The rights of Hélène Ledouble to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023952525
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-712-5
Foreword
The book written by Hélène Ledouble, Popularizing Science: The Complex Terminological Interactions between Scientific and Press Discourses within the Field of Agroecology, is the result of the author’s experience, as a linguist, in an interdisciplinary research project that began in 2017 at the initiative of INRAE (Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement – French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment).
It is original in more ways than one: by the questions it addresses (the popularization of science); by the field it concerns (agroecology); by the methods it presents (linguistic corpus analysis and cognitive analysis) and more generally, by the questions it raises about the possibilities of transmitting scientific knowledge to the general public. A crucial (and fascinating) problem underlies the book – is it possible to popularize science? As the author reminds us, epistemologists, educators and, of course, linguists have taken up this question and put it in another way – are scientific concepts accessible to the general public? Isn’t popularization a distortion of science? Is it a simple translation? What is the relationship between popularization and education? More generally, how do political and social perspectives interfere with the goal to popularize? Hélène Ledouble introduces these questions in a manner that is highly relevant, relying on an abundant bibliography. Taking the stance that popularization is possible, she bases her reflection on the study of the media coverage of agroecology. This is a field that is not well known to the general public, although it touches on major issues such as food, health, ecology and the climate.
The analysis presented by Hélène Ledouble focuses on the detailed study of several concepts: biocontrol methods, agents and products. The corpus, made up of press articles in English and French, allows us to identify similarities in the way the two languages work. The systematic exploration of the contexts leads Hélène Ledouble to identify processes that may seem contradictory. For example, the significant use of terminological variation (denominative competition), which does not necessarily result in the “simplification” that is assumed to be the primary concern of journalists. This dual tendency (terminological variation versus simplification) underlines a specific construction of meaning, one that is not inherent to the terms but rather developed during the discursive process, involving both journalists and the readers they are trying to inform.
The popularization of any subject through the media brings into play other issues in addition to didactics alone. It is necessary, in one way or another, to spark an interest or even to seduce the reader, who is also a consumer, even if it means putting knowledge on show, sometimes in a way that borders on sensationalism. Hélène Ledouble shows that the use of metaphors (gastronomy, control, conflict), of childish discourse or of specific (binary) arguments to convey a perspective are frequent, and undoubtedly characteristic of popularization as a journalistic genre.
Regarding sensitive issues such as those related to ecology (in one way or another), the reader approaches general press articles with “knowledge” that is more or less accurate, as well as opinions and expectations that can create cognitive biases. Hélène Ledouble describes how, in the specific case of agroecology, a binary framing is implemented, which may introduce incorrect representations. Thus, “organic” and “natural” methods and products are seen as positive, while chemical and traditional methods (and products) are assumed to be negative. In popular imagination, this binary vision has generated negative connotations that are associated with linguistic structures such as the prefix phyto (as in phytosanitary products) or the suffix cide (as in insecticide), connotations that are not present in the etymology. Journalists must consider the impact of these implicit meanings, in order to try to rectify them without “offending” the readers’ beliefs too much. The popularization of a discipline such as agroecology therefore appears to be a complex process that must combine the simplification (of concepts) and the increasing number of terms, collective thought and scientific knowledge, as well as interest from the reader and the transmission of proven facts. Far from being a predefined path from expert to novice, the popularization of scientific knowledge thus appears to be a construction that is developed by the generalist journalist, who hopes to make the reader part of this process, with a necessary effort to interpret science.
However, the journalist’s position does raise certain ethical questions. Indeed, on sensitive subjects such as the one dealt with in this book and given the journalists’ complex intentions (to inform but also to spark interest), the way in which knowledge is presented can give the reader a distorted vision of the situation, even to the point of feeling that science has become “crazy”. In order to not move too far into sensationalism and emotion, the journalist must maintain a close relationship with the scientific world. Their texts are also situated in a social, political, economic and sometimes local context, which has an impact on how they write. As Hélène Ledouble maintains, the journalist must also clarify the role of the scientist, which is to not only tell a “truth” but to also doubt and share uncertainty, even if that may be unsettling for the reader. In the process of circulating terms, the journalist thus maintains a sort of partnership with the scientists and the readers (and other actors). Together, they participate in the process of popularization and even in the development of the discipline.
The complexity of the popularization process could lead Hélène Ledouble to question the possibility of popularizing via the media. However, her conviction that such an undertaking is possible and necessary leads her to propose alternatives (or rather complementary approaches). She thus evokes the very current work that is being done in various fields to design simplified languages (plain languages). She also suggests assistance that would help the journalist’s writing and the reader’s interpretation by constructing a resource to reflect the different points of view, so as to shed light on all the facets of the problem. We may think that this could mean building a fairly standard terminological resource. However, several aspects would make this resource more adapted to this specific purpose, including links to usage, links to needs or joint construction of the research question. The author thus develops a real plea for the joint involvement of scientists, citizens and mediators in the development of agroecology.
Hélène Ledouble’s work is based on a terminological approach based on corpus. However, by evoking the complexity of the popularization process, it opens up numerous perspectives on the nature of expert knowledge. It therefore raises questions to do with the role of language in developing knowledge, the possibility of a “neutral” approach, the possibilities of disseminating knowledge to non-experts and the role of simplification (linguistic and conceptual) in this undertaking. Of course, a linguistic study in which the reflection combines detailed analysis with proposals for the general public and decision-makers is most welcome. There is no doubt that the author’s reflections, which are anchored in a solid corpus analysis, will not only give food for thought to linguists but also to epistemologists, scientists, students and, of course, journalists.
Anne CONDAMINES
Research Director, CNRS, CLLE (Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie) and Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès
Preface
By way of a preface to this entire work, and following the example of Jeanneret (1994), we wish to state that, for us, the work of journalists popularizing science is unconditionally “worthy of respect and requires great vigilance”, regardless of the form it may take. In this book, therefore, everything is thought out, analyzed and written with a deep consideration for this desire for dialogue, between two perspectives that are divergent by nature – the scientific approach and the media approach – the meeting of which is not only necessary, but a decisive factor for good cross-comprehension. The objective of this book is therefore to try to contribute to the reinforcement and enrichment of this dialogue between science and society.
February 2024
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to thank Anne Condamines for proofreading this manuscript before its publication and for writing the foreword. We share the belief that both the linguist and linguistics (applied but also “engaged”) have a role to play, in the professional world and in society in general.
I would also like to pay tribute to the late Professor Henri Zinglé, Director of the Laboratory of Linguistic Engineering and Applied Linguistics (LILLA) at the University of Nice, who shared this same vision. He knew how to spark vocations in young researchers thanks to his passion for linguistics and language processing tools.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in linguistics at the University of Toulon, for our enriching exchanges and seminars. I would like to thank Michèle Monte in particular, for infusing her energy into our research team, and for her open-mindedness, which ensures the interdisciplinarity that is so essential to scientific research.
Three proofreaders of my manuscript have helped to nourish both the content and the form of my thoughts. Mojca Pecman, professor at Université Paris Cité, has accompanied my work since its outset, and I thank her in particular for her thorough proofreading and precious advice. Aura Parmentier, associate professor at the Université Côte d’Azur, enabled me to enrich this manuscript with her approach to social sciences and her decisive role as coordinator of the Valbio Collective since its inception. I extend my gratitude to Katharine Throssell for her outstanding proofreading and translating skills, unwavering professionalism, and meticulous attention to detail, which significantly contributed to the refinement of (part of) the English version of this book.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at INRAE (notably Thibaut Malausa, Nicolas Ris, and Louise van Oudenhove), and the Valbio and ENI-BC collectives, who devoted time and attention to my work, as well as my colleagues from Université Côte d’Azur and the research team Transitions, at the heart of this project.
I am also grateful to Andrea Catellani (Université Catholique de Louvain) and Céline Pascual Espuny (Université Aix-Marseille) for their proofreading, as well as the inclusion of this book in the “Communication, environment, science and society” set, which they initiated.
On a more personal note, I would like to thank all those who read the various texts that led to this book, and who helped improve them through constructive feedback: Vincent, Sophie, Peggy C., Alexandre, David, Dany, Cyril, Isabelle, Caroline, Peggy F. and Karine.
Naturally, my heartfelt thanks go to Astier, who has understood the time I needed for this project to go forwards. In keeping with his initial promise, Astier has always accepted my work as part of our family.
Lastly, I cannot conclude this section without thinking of my parents, to whom I give my warmest thanks for their constant support in my personal and professional life, for our rich exchanges which bring so much to me and for the attention they have always given to my most important writings.
Introduction
For a long time, scientific information has reached the general public through the media. This book will question the public’s ability to appropriate or to (re)construct scientific knowledge by reading the national and regional daily press. Originally, the media does not set out to transmit scientific knowledge as its primary objective, and we will discuss the role (and the responsibility) of the media in popularizing science in Part One of this book. Nevertheless, we hypothesize that it is difficult to provide information to the reader without also providing a minimum of knowledge1. This poses a major challenge for journalists; they must create high-quality information that is both accessible and intelligible, and which enable the reader to participate – in full knowledge of the facts – in the democratic debate on scientific issues.
In this context, it is important to avoid a simplistic approach to the process of popularizing science or minimizing the complexity of these social practices and technical and semiotic devices2. The paradox inherent in this process is now well established, being both “trivial”, because it has existed for a long time, and “complex”, mostly because it relies on a set of disciplines, and therefore on a set of perspectives. Because the popularization of science relies on the intersection of communication devices, knowledge and social logic, it is of interest to “hard sciences” (chemistry, physics, biology, agronomy, etc.), as well as to the humanities (information and communication, linguistics, history, etc.). Moreover, since the subjects covered by the media concern both the political world and society, the process is of interest to social sciences as a whole (sociology, economics, law, management, etc.).
In his seminal work Écrire la science, Jeanneret (1994) suggested that the popularization project should be taken very seriously, reminding us of this necessary interdisciplinarity, a principle that is now accepted in all research on this subject3. The extent and development of the field in recent decades can be seen in the numerous workshops, conferences and publications in this area. They also illustrate the wide variety of approaches that are devoted to it, which we will explore in this work4.
Our study follows on from research devoted to the “science-society dialogue” and to the dissemination of scientific information beyond experts. The scientific field at the heart of this research is agroecology, and in particular the protection of plants by natural mechanisms (insects or substances of natural origin, for example). Our objective is to study terminological and cognitive issues when popularizing the processes of biological control (in French and English)5. The analysis of this field is particularly interesting for at least three complementary reasons, which we will outline below.
First, although its denominations and concepts are still not well known to the general public, scientific research on biological control is constantly progressing, and the development of its methods is likely to have a significant societal and environmental impact in the decades to come. Faced with the pressing issue of environmental protection, society is taking up these subjects and – as already noted by Guilbert (1975) – the situation is therefore becoming favorable for the observation of an object of discourse and its evolution.
Second, this field is gaining momentum in the French and international news, as recent regulations (see the law for Agriculture, Food and Forestry6, the Labbé law7, the Ecophyto II governmental plan8, etc.) impose a transition towards more natural methods of plant protection.
Third, the (plant protection) products developed in this field are presented as alternatives to (chemically produced) phytosanitary products (commonly called “pesticides”), which have been disparaged for a long time and are increasingly controversial today. Since the work of Carson (1962), many multidisciplinary studies have been devoted to these controversial products9, as well as to the necessary transition from agrochemistry to agroecology10.
Citizens are therefore likely to have a positive preconception of this field, given that scientific research is seen as being able to propose concrete solutions for the reduction of pollution (in soils, waterways, crops), with positive health benefits11.
On the other hand, agroecology is a complex scientific field that also has controversial aspects, if we look into the processes involved: biological control methods involve human intervention in the natural ecosystem and affect living organisms (macro or micro-organisms). It is therefore likely to evoke other sensitive and widely covered issues that are related to human interference in natural phenomena (genetically modified organisms, cloning, etc.). The way in which these subjects are presented by the media may therefore have an impact on how the citizen understands and perceives the field (in a positive or negative light). Indeed, the capacity of any individual to understand, to accept or to reject scientific progress will largely depend on the way in which it is presented (named, designated, described) in the media, and thus popularized.
This is the central focus of this book. Here, we set out to explore the way in which the field of biological control is presented by the written press, through the general perspective and methods of applied linguistics.
The book is divided into three parts, which will enable us to explore these questions in greater depth. Part 1 is made up of three chapters and sets the overall framework in which we place ourselves, that of the challenge assigned to the media in this dialogue between science and society. We address the multiple forms (and perceptions) of this dialogue, the role and the responsibility of the media in this process, as well as the complex relations between scientific and media methods and perspectives (Chapter 1). These elements are then enriched by a text-based approach, dealing with discourses around science and, in particular, the link between language and the different forms of knowledge that can be conveyed (Chapter 2). This first part concludes with the way we envisage textual data analysis, and the presentation of theoretical and methodological tools that are specific to textual terminology and which constitute an interesting entry point for the study of media discourse (Chapter 3).
Part 2 of this book is devoted to the case study at the heart of this research: the media coverage of the specialized field of biocontrol. After a presentation of scientific methods and products involved, and of the dual French and English corpora selected for this study (Chapter 4), the two following chapters highlight the results of the analysis in context. First, we present the different terms that refer to the same methods and products in this field of specialization, in other words, the competitive denominations throughout press articles (Chapter 5). We then discuss the description of these objects of discourse, through various simplification strategies, for example, the use of a “binary” cognitive procedure pitting the biological against the chemical, as well as the use of reasoning by analogy (Chapter 6). These discursive strategies ensure a clear and accessible dissemination of information to a wide audience but can raise questions and even interpretation difficulties for a non-expert reader.
Part 3 of this book consists of two chapters that look back on issues and challenges related to media coverage in the field of agroecology. The first chapter (Chapter 7) presents a summary of the questions generated by the analysis of media discourse, revealing the linguistic instability that can hinder effective communication. The second and final chapter of this part (Chapter 8) identifies a set of challenges that need to be addressed in order to improve communication in this emerging field, which are related to scientific issues in environmental communication more generally.
NOTE.– This study is being conducted as part of an interdisciplinary research project (BOOST: Bioprotection and Biostimulation of Plants) initiated in 2017 by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement – INRAE). It is supported by the Université Côte d’Azur (UCA) as part of its structuring research projects and brings together several scientific partners (including the Institut Sophia Agrobiotech (ISA), the Group for Research in Law, Economics and Management (Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion – GREDEG), the URE Transitions (UCA) and the BABEL research laboratory (University of Toulon)12.
Notes
1
We thus follow the principles proposed by other researchers, such as Jeanneret (
1994
), Véron (
1997
) or Schiele (
2005
), for example, who consider that popularizing science requires the dissemination of a minimum amount of scientific knowledge.
2
These terms (
social practices
,
technical and semiotic devices
) are borrowed from Le Marec and Babou (
2004
).
3
In the wake of other seminal works such as Schoenfeld (
1980
) and Nelkin (
1986
).
4
Among many references, let us mention for example: the conference “Parcours linguistiques de discours spécialisés” (Sorbonne and Cediscor 1992); the workshop “La communication de l’information scientifique” (Centre de recherche en information et communication, 2001); the conference “Le traitement scientifique de la complexité” (Lille, 2001); the conference “Sciences, Médias et Sociétés” (ENS Lyon, 2004); the conference “La publicisation de la science” (Institut de la communication et des médias, Grenoble, 2004); the conference “Sciences et société en mutation” (CNRS, 2007); the workshop “La mise en récit de discours spécialisés” (GERAS, 2015); the workshop “Rencontres, Sciences et Société” (University of Lyon, 2017); the conference “Les nouvelles formes de la vulgarisation et de l’écriture du savoir” (University of Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2018); the ACFAS 2019 congress “Engager le dialogue Savoirs-Sociétés” (University of Montreal, 2019); the workshop “Pesticides, approches pluridisciplinaires” (University of Burgundy, 2021), etc. There are also numerous journals or special issues of journals devoted to these topics:
Public Understanding of Science
;
Les Carnets du Cediscor
; the
Hermès
journal;
Discourse Studies, Discourse & Communication
; the proceedings of the TIA (
Terminologie et Intelligence artificielle
) conferences;
Les enjeux de l’information et de la communication
(2021); “Recherche scientifique et Médias” in the
Revue française de la SFSIC
(2020);
Études de communication
;
Les Cahiers du journalisme
;
Quaderni
, and other books and multidisciplinary research works that we will mention throughout this book.
5
These and other terms related to this specialized area will be defined in
Chapter 4
, as well as in the glossary at the end of the book.
6
Law No. 2014-1170 of October 13, 2014. See:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000029573022
[Accessed November 1, 2023].
7
See:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2014/2/6/2014-110/jo/texte
[Accessed November 1, 2023].
8
See:
https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-plan-ecophyto-quest-ce-que-cest
[Accessed November 1, 2023].
9
Examples include some recent multidisciplinary studies on pesticides: (Roussary et al.
2013
; Aulagnier and Goulet
2017
; Chateauraynaud and Debaz
2017
; Botero
2021
; Foucart
2021
; Jouzel
2019
; Lambert
2020
).
10
Among a profusion of multidisciplinary works and publications on these issues, the following references are strongly similar to our work, by their theme or their methodology (see Galochet et al.
2008
; Deguine et al.
2016
; Chlous et al. 2017b; Catellani et al.
2019
; FAO
2019
; HLPE
2019
; Fauvergue et al.
2020
; Allard-Huver 2021).
11
According to the
One Health
concept, or
Global Health
, which addresses the health of humans, animals and plants in a holistic manner. See:
https://www.inrae.fr/alimentation-sante-globale/one-health-seule-sante
[Accessed November 1, 2023].
12
The BOOST project (under the IDEX UCA-JEDI of the Université Côte d’Azur), launched in 2017, brings together researchers in biology, agronomy, entomology, chemistry, management, sociology, linguistics, information sciences, psychology, philosophy, etc.
PART 1The Challenge of Popularizing Science
Introduction to Part 1
This introductory section has various objectives. It begins by presenting the definitions and perceptions of the various notions discussed in this book (popularization of science, science in the media, etc.), before emphasizing their implications for society. In media publications about complex scientific issues, the terminological question is crucial. It represents the link between linguistic forms and specialized knowledge, within discourses targeted to a less expert readership. In this first part, we will explore press discourses on science (Chapter 1), analyze their terminological and cognitive characteristics (Chapter 2) and conclude Part 1 with a presentation of our methods of textual data analysis (Chapter 3).
1The Dialogue Between Science and Society
The word is there because the problem is there. The word is awkward because the problem is awkward1.
Yves Jeanneret (1994, p. 20)
Communicating science to the layperson is a complex subject. There have been many kinds of popular science initiatives since the origin of the “popularizing project” (Schiele 1983). It is therefore important to briefly recall the definition, the denominations and the designations devoted to this project.
1.1. The popularizing project
Popularization can be defined as “making something (that is difficult to understand) easily understood by ordinary people”2. When applied to science, it is a complex process that gives rise to a wide variety of mechanisms and materials. Jeanneret summarized them as follows: “Popularization of science is part of a continuum of forms of communication that goes from preprints, reserved for a small number of peers, to the mainstream press” (Jeanneret 1994, p. 176). Between these two opposite poles, there are a range of other materials, such as museum catalogues and documentation, training manuals for students, popular science magazines (Science et Avenir, La Recherche, The Scientist, Scientific American, etc.) and a number of other media making scientific information accessible to non-experts. Authier described this activity as “conveying scientific information towards the outside, based on knowledge that has already been produced and is circulating within a more restricted community” (Authier 1982, p. 34).
Here, we look back on some of the terms used to describe these practices.
1.1.1. How we talk about popular science
Different lexical forms are used to refer to this field of study, without necessarily being equivalent to one another: popularization, divulgation, vulgarization, publicization, scientific communication, science for the layperson, science in the media, scientific mediation, etc. Some terms are favored by specific languages or cultures (such as popularization, or popular science in the English-speaking world, divulgación in the Spanish-speaking world). In French, vulgarisation is the generic term used for these practices. From an etymological point of view, it is forged from the Latin root vulgaris, which is derived from vulgus (“the crowd”). Based on this etymology, it has progressively taken on a depreciatory connotation (Jacquet-Pfau 2021). Thus, because of its name and its very purpose, “vulgarized” science has always raised questions in the Francophone world. Some authors see it as an unrealistic undertaking, in the face of an excessively large gap between the world of science and another “ordinary” world. In reading various publications on the subject, it becomes clear that certain designations are tinged with negativity; for instance, they may refer to an artificial culture (“culture de synthèse” in French), an imitation of culture (“ersatz” or “culture alibi”), a parody of learning, serving to perpetuate a kind of scientific illiteracy and lack of culture. In describing the position of its detractors, Jeanneret reminds us that in communicating scientific expertise to the layperson, knowledge may lose some of its purity and be considered as degraded (Jeanneret 1994). This passage between two worlds, which some present as a process of translation3, or even betrayal4, potentially refers to the shift from a “pure” world to an “impure” world.
Critics claim that the popularization process transforms both the form of knowledge and its substance. Roqueplo (1974) takes up some of Bachelard’s (1938) arguments in the well-known publication La formation de l’esprit scientifique, describing the “showcasing” of knowledge isolated from scientific practice. He argues that “it is impossible to truly transmit objective knowledge through the mediation of a discourse/spectacle alone, implying a unilateral form of communication and excluding any effective practice”5 (Roqueplo 1974, p. 220).
Thus, a common critique of popular science is that it “substitutes representations for knowledge” (Schiele 1983, p. 164), and incarnates a “myth of scientificity” (Jurdant 1973, pp. 97–107), insofar as what is transmitted is not “real knowledge”.
Nevertheless, considering popular science as sharing scientific knowledge with a non-specialist audience is an ambitious objective, and inevitably leads to a defeatist conclusion (Jacobi 2005). We agree with many authors who wish to “dispel, once and for all, the issue of the scientific illiteracy of citizens” (Schiele 2005, p. 50), to which popular science would be a remediation process. The vocabulary used to describe this process shows how distant it is from scientific knowledge in the true sense (narrative approach to science, showcase approach to science, publicization of scientific issues, etc.)6. Popular science, and science in the media even more so, consist of ignoring certain aspects of scientific work in order to “make it understandable as a social activity” (Jeanneret 1994, p. 112).
We now present different perspectives that tend to recognize the virtue of the dialogue between science and society and look at encouraging prospects for the popularizing project.
1.1.2. Promoting popularization
Historically speaking, popularization has also been perceived as somewhat virtuous, disseminating a form of “scientific culture” to the common people, so as to compensate for their ignorance “imped[ing] the progress of the Enlightenment” (Jeanneret 1994, p. 45). In the French-speaking world, the term “culture scientifique” (“scientific culture”) has slowly been replacing the French term “vulgarization” since the 1980s (Raichvarg 2016). It is, however, important to clearly define what is meant by the term “culture” in this phrase, and in the so-called “cultural” approach to popular science. Jacobi reminds us of its ambiguous meaning, whether the approach is anthropological, literary or artistic (Jacobi 2005, p. 70). However, the term culture is no less ambiguous when combined with “scientific and technical”7.
Over the course of the 20th century, this desire to make science accessible to society led to the creation of museums devoted to scientific discoveries (the “Palais de la Découverte” opened in 1937 in Paris), or to “Science centers” (such as the Ontario Science Centre8, the “Cité des sciences et de l’industrie” in Paris9, etc.). These facilities innovate by proposing “interactive devices, intended to be both recreational and educational in order to capture, focus and hold the visitor’s attention” (Schiele 2005, p. 46). Shiele describes this as the “social project” of scientific and technical culture, the objective of which is not only to (re)enhance the image of science but also to involve the public in the scientific world. It is also a political project, with, for example, the French government launching a series of initiatives in this area since the 1990s. In 2004, the government created a national plan aiming to develop and modernize the ways scientific information is disseminated10. In 2012, the French National Council for Scientific, Technical and Industrial Culture (CNSTI) was created, with the ambition of creating an advisory body on these subjects11. Two French reports have specifically focused on government initiatives in the area of scientific culture: the OPECST report (2014)12 and the CNSTI report (2017)13, the latter being conducted over five years and incorporated into the White Paper on higher education and research.
In order to encompass all of these approaches, Wolton adds an alternative to the list of terms mentioned above, that of valorization of scientific research (Wolton 1997, p. 41). All of these perspectives have come to public attention thanks to the Unesco Kalinga Prize, which has been awarded since 1951 to the best popular science projects at the international level14.
A consensus seems to be emerging on the positive mission of popular science, “as a device to educate the greatest number of people” (Jacobi 1986, p. 29). This “non-formal education” is therefore seen as being complementary to traditional education, as was already emphasized in 1958, during a conference on the popularization of science. François Le Lionnais15 considered it to be more flexible than the teaching of science, and therefore “of national interest”:
Science is moving fast; it is moving faster than education […]; no matter how good the educational reform is, it will soon be overtaken by science. We therefore need complementary devices and materials. […] Alongside national education, there must be popular science, which gives teaching more flexibility (Le Lionnais (1958), quoted by Schiele (2005, p. 14))
Both criticized and promoted throughout its history, popularizing science remains, by all accounts, of major importance today. Indeed, its success is in the interest of all those involved in this dialogue.
But who are the actors involved? And who benefits most from popular science initiatives? It could be society as a whole, if we follow Lévy-Leblond (1992), who compares the “level of ignorance” among laypeople to that among scientists in fields in which they are not specialists. This author, himself a scientist, considers that “an expert in one field is a non-expert in almost all others and, as such, is very close to the absolute layperson as far as scientific culture in general is concerned” (Levy-Leblond 1992, p. 17).
Following these positive perspectives on the popularization of science, we will here be focusing on the beneficial or “virtuous” processes whereby a certain form of scientific culture is made available to a very heterogeneous readership, while also contributing to the evolution of science.
We must also question the purpose of this project, particularly as concerns our primary object, the media coverage of scientific issues. What exactly is being popularized?
In order to answer this, we need to clearly define what is expected of the media. According to Miège, “it is important to make a clear distinction between the organizations that contribute to the dissemination of scientific culture, those that participate in the communication of science, and the ‘operators’ that are best able to stimulate public debates on scientific questions, which are assumed to be the mass media” (Miège 2004, p. 128).
In fact, in contrast to traditional popular science magazines (such as The Scientist and Science et Avenir), it is widely documented that people do not read newspapers, whether national or regional, to obtain scientific information or to improve their knowledge in the field of science. In this context, as Fayard specified as early as 1988, “from being a true end in itself, popular science becomes a means, a tool for issues that go beyond the mere scientific content of the message conveyed, and which situates that message in a broader social and economic context” (Fayard 1988, p. 11).
We now turn to the role of the media, particularly daily newspapers, in this dialogue between science and society.
1.2. Science in the media and the multiplicity of actors
Here, we focus on science in the media, i.e. how the daily press covers scientific subjects. The English language has no specific term to refer to the daily press coverage of information, while the French language uses the (polysemous) term “médiatisation” (Lafon 2019a; Miège 201916). When dealing with scientific subjects, daily newspapers have a different objective from traditional popular science magazines, but they also need to “popularize” science, to make it accessible to a non-specialist audience. Let us return to the status and role of journalists in this process.
1.2.1. From scholarly knowledge to social knowledge
The critical discourse on popular science has clearly identified the limits of this endeavor when the media is given the overly ambitious task of transmitting scientific knowledge. The written press aims to do something slightly different, not to “reproduce pre-existing statements of science, but rather to construct a discourse on the world, informed by the activity of scholars but of a profoundly different nature” (Jeanneret 1994, p. 38). The goal here is not to “make the individual more competent” (Beacco and Moirand 1995, p. 40), but to provide information on issues concerning science and society. The media contribution to the societal debate is thus considered a “more social than scientific explanation” (Moirand 2000, p. 47), where the notion of scholarly (or “intellectual”) knowledge is replaced by that of “social knowledge” (Beacco 2000).
The media thus acts as an informant; in order to appeal to its readership, it must ensure that it presents subjects of interest to its readers. Health and environmental issues have long been among the most stimulating themes in the media, as various studies on these subjects have shown (e.g. Miller 1991, 2004, in the United States). Cabedoche (2003) also cites a survey showing that the French are in favor of citizen debates and wish to be consulted on genetic research (38%), modes of agri-food production (38%), GMOs (37%) and energy choices (29%). The citizen’s keen interest in science has since been confirmed by various surveys, notably in France by CREDOC17 in a report published in 2013 on “citizens’ scientific curiosity”.
