传播与解读的博弈:基于转基因科普文本的评论分析
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:

国家转基因生物新品种培育重大专项重大课题“转基因生物技术发展科普宣传与风险交流”(2016ZX08015002)。


The Dislocation Between Sending and Receiving: Content Analysis of the Comments of an Online Science Popularization Article
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    “后常规”时代各种新媒体的出现,使科学议题传播的复杂性更加凸显,用户均可生成内容,为科学家、科普工作者提供了更多的科普途径,同时增加了公众针对科学议题“发声”的机会,这些都为研究传-受之间的张力和博弈现象提供了素材。科学传播的图景进一步发生改变,其中传-受之间的错位现象对科学议题的有效传播影响重大。本文采用的案例是微信公众号“我是科学家iScientist”和“果壳”发表的崔凯博士的一篇名为“公众为什么不相信转基因”的转基因科普文章及其文后评论。采用内容分析方法,从主题和解读两个层面解析传-受之间存在的重合和错位。研究发现,在主题层面,科普文本和评论之间重合较大,只在“道德与伦理”和“通过意见领袖来表达自己的观点”出现错位。在议题的解读层面,科普文本与对转基因持反对态度的评论之间差异较大:其一,虽然传-受双方都认同科学技术的不确定性,但是二者对此表现出的态度却是截然相反的;其二,对政府监管的信任程度不同;其三,转基因技术对社会的影响、科普工作的重要性方面产生解读错位;最后,评论对于科普方的合法性存在质疑。

    Abstract:

    The dissemination of scientific issues has become more complex due to the advent of various new media in “post-normal” era. User-generated content provides scientists and science advocates with more ways to work on science popularizations,and meanwhile greatly facilitates the public to participate in the social debates of scientific issues,thus providing ample research materials for learning the Game Theory and tension between the sending and the receiving. The landscape of science communication has profoundly changed. And the dislocation of the sending and the receiving is of vital importance to the effective dissemination of scientific issues. This study took one GMO-themed speech article published in two social media platforms as the case to investigate the tension between scientific communicators and their assumed target audience. The content analysis revealed the overlap and dislocation between transmission and reception of the speech manuscript from two levels,theme and interpretation. It was found that at the theme level,there was a large overlap between the speech manuscript and comments,with only two exceptions,namely,“ethics and morality” and “expression of opinions through opinion leaders”. However,at the level of interpretation,there was a big difference. Although both sides agreed upon the uncertainty of science and technology,they expressed their views in quite opposite ways. In addition,trust in government regulations varied. And there was a dislocation in the interpretation of GM in terms of its social impacts and significance to scientific popularization. There was also suspect about the legitimacy of the science popularizers.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

杨婧,金兼斌.传播与解读的博弈:基于转基因科普文本的评论分析[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2020(1):143-152

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2020-01-02
  • 出版日期: