MP0605 (R)

MP0605 (R)

• 1.
  MP0605 / MediaDissertation 
 Abstract This paper strives to use the understanding gained on audiences to support the use of entertainment media for science communication. This paper will discuss how audiences behave when presented with science-related content, how much attention they give to it, the specific effects it has on the audience and society, how they respond to ‘informative’ versus ‘entertaining’ content, and whether the audience passively believes everything they are told or actively derive meaning from content and personal experience. This paper notes that effects on audiences cannot be ascribed to any one media as factors like culture are at play to influence behaviour and thought patterns. Hence, this paper argues for using entertainment content and social media for science communication, so that more laypeople may enter the domain of science as they do culture. 1. Introduc.on The story of Apollo 11’s lunar landing on July 1969 marked the peak of the space race and human ingenuity as the world observed in fascination from moving images showing the first humans walking on the moon. This was a time when space was seen as the next frontier for conquest, emerging intense interests in both factual and fictional narratives chronicled for the Sputnik and Apollo programmes, and produced for television series Star of1 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Kaplan: CT0232995 Making sense of science: an unconventional use of the entertainment genre June, 2016
• 2.
  Trek and BattlestarGalactica. During this brief period, a cultural appreciation of science had been exalted by scientists, journalists, and scriptwriters dedicated to their own field of research-based development (Gregory and Miller, 2000, pp.4-13). As well, scientific discoveries were reported like information about current affairs, entailing the conditions of rigour and immediacy (Cosce.org, 2015, pp.143). However, the cultural standing for real science is in steep decline since the media became more obliged to present content based on the preferences of large private funders (ibid., pp.142). This translated to the print, radio, and television’s diminishing role in science communication; as sponsored content meant that producers may perpetuate or invent mythologies within the consumer world to generate profit and goodwill for the funding bodies in politics, commerce or culture (ibid.) .1 Unless governed by policy, broadcasters, publishers, and editors need not always assume the responsibility of a direct educational role that appreciates and cultivates rationalist values driving the scientific method to knowledge. Initially, the widening gulf between science and the media society meant that science would retract back to communicating through the manuscript not too jargonistic or logorrheic for experts to imbibe (Pasquali, 2007). As more quality control and information accuracy is possible with a detailed account of data, research, experimental methods and results, and attribution to other scientific literature. However, traditional means of communicating science is mostly esoteric, formal, and passive; keeping many discoveries within a closed circle and the public behind time (Darzentas et al., 2007, pp.886). The public is an important party of science communication because they may reciprocate in the democratic process to generate funding and public support for further studies (Gregory et al., 2000, pp.10-16). Further, it is within the interests of science communication to provide background scientific knowledge to the public so that they can make informed decisions (ibid.). With the advent of Web 2.0, static webpages have evolved to promote a culture of participation and collaboration between online users; dawning a new era of information sharing (Meikle and Young, 2012, pp.65-68). Nevertheless, the success of web- communities and user-driven sites such as YouTube and Facebook in democratising knowledge suggests the opportunity to narrow the information gap between experts and For example, advertisements for health, beauty, and slimming products with “latest technology”1 and “recommended by doctors” slogans; or, shows like Ancient Aliens and Ghost Hunters packaged as a science documentary; or, articles written by Friends of Science using scientific language to propagate climate change denialism. of2 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 3.
  laypeople (Darzentas etal., 2007, pp.886). With an emerging collective intelligence and open commentary enabled (ibid.), communicating science on social media becomes a shorter two-way street than the manuscript. Communication is sped up and information travels more broadly, connecting people and content over greater distances and relations (ibid). However, the Web 2.0 era has also given rise to user-generated science content based on both credible sources as well as fallacious arguments. This resulted in more polarisation between groups, as the audience use the media to reinforce their personal beliefs. As well, content that is packaged as facts tend to have little to do with it, and fuelling audiences with the wrong information has only distanced science and the public even further. With science being perceived as a complicated subject for many, this paper proposes the use of the entertainment genre instead of traditional methods to communicate science. To quote Jenkins, (2006, pp.236) “The news media is walking away from historical responsibilities, and popular culture is taking its pedagogical potential more seriously”. This is because the entertainment genre has the capacity to let audiences question their surroundings and derive greater meaning from the media than the conventions of informative media, which offers structured answers coming from producers whose motives are unsympathetic or unknown. Moreover, more young people are getting information about the world from entertainment media instead of news media (Jenkins, 2006, pp.235), suggesting that both entertainment and information can coexist in the same genre. If this is true, scientific texts can also be made entertaining by the right producers. 2.1 Science “The Birst principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman, physics Nobel laureate, 1965. Science is a body of knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible information. Derived from the Latin word ‘scientia,’ the definition of science according to the modern dictionary is, “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (Oxford Academic English, of3 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 4.
  2016). There arefour key words to note in the above description when entering the domain of science: ‘observation,’ ‘experiment,’ ‘demonstrable,’ and ‘reproducible’. The function of an experiment is to test an observation, if indeed, the guess was true or false, specific or not. That experiment must be demonstrable, and whatever results to come must be reported and reproducible in a corresponding manner. Linguistically, the terminology which science uses may confuse the untrained mind into thinking that, like language, its form is fluid. That is not the case. Use of words such as ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ are not interchangeable with ‘opinion’ or ‘idea’. Science values accuracy in information and a reliable approach towards results. Scientific facts are often reduced far beyond the tenets for happiness that it becomes counterintuitive to those who are non-scientists. For this reason, science would not advance fast enough and propel societies forward if it depended on popular opinion . However, it can become societies’2 engine of prosperity by conducting itself carefully, ethically and legally. Otherwise, it dares do all that may convey the truth, to categorise the universe plainly on measurable and objective certainty. What dares more is none, lest it spirals down into the realm of pseudoscience and mythology. But those can be seen as two extreme ends of a spectrum. In the middle of it, there is the domain of science communication that thrives on using entertainment media to reach the non-scientist majority (Olson, 2009). This sentiment has been arrived at in the subsequent chapters and discussions of this paper. 2.2 Importance of Science Communica.on In the book Science in Public, Gregory and Miller (1998) described the term ‘science communication’ as public communication of science-related topics to non-experts, typically through a mass medium. The goals of science communication are to generate support for scientific study (in terms of funding, policy, or public opinion ), address misinformation to3 the public, and enable them to make informed decisions or have informed thought processes (Gregory & Miller, 1998). For example, in the effort to end the widespread of Ebola, scientists had to effectively communicate different aspects of the topic to the public For example; cultural, religious as well as other structural oppressions which delayed2 advancements in medicine during the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Hajdu, 2007). Although science is certainly not a democratic discipline, some fields have been penalised or3 discontinued due to public protest (e.g., Embryonic stem cell research banned in Germany, New Zealand, some states of USA, and most of Africa and South America). of4 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 5.
  (typically, through ahealth authority that interprets raw scientific information to the public), such as treatment options, the symptoms of an infection, modes of virus transmission, and what preventive measures can be taken. Upon underlining the severity of Ebola, the public might understand how to protect themselves and each other from it, but governments and organisations may redirect funds into researching a cure for the disease without backlash. Although relatively new an academic discipline science communication is (Cosce.org, 2015), it has already left a great social impact on laypeople and shall continue so. The following two passages present real examples of a (i) positive, and (ii) negative, effect science communication has had on the world to date. (i) From a democratic perspective, well-informed societies or organisations can better decide on what policies are best for their governments or managements to enact (Gregory et al., 2000). As knowledge promotes a culture of responsible voting (i.e., support for a cause), more sentient beings can be liberated from inadequate traditions being discontinued for the public good. Protecting the rights of minorities and animals, or providing adequate support to the less-abled, is example of how this plays out. When scientists were able to effectively communicate about sexual orientation (i.e., a genetic predisposition where homosexuality is found not just in humans but in many species of the animal kingdom), homosexuality became to be seen by more people as a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than an emerging decadence. To quote Gallup, “Among the general population, those who view homosexuality as a genetic trait tend to be more accepting of it than those who believe it is a function of one’s environment, which implies a more voluntary lifestyle choice” (Carlson, 2002). As time passed and more people came to accept homosexuality (not without campaigning efforts of advocate groups), the United States of America (USA) Supreme Court eventually ruled on June 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage across the country. Another example of laws being changed when scientists communicate with the public is in India, May 2013, when the Ministry of Environment and Forests enforced a nationwide ban on dolphin captivity. The decision was met with large support from environmentalist grass-roots, after scientific research on dolphin behaviour revealed irrefutable evidence of high intelligence synonymous to “non-human persons”, thus recommending its ethical release from captivity (Ens-newswire.com, 2013). Also, with regard to delinquent youths, more schools are urged to partner closely with external mental health clinics who are better trained to identify and treat youths with mental illness than school teachers who double as student counsellors (Bloom, 2015, pp.3-19). This of5 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 6.
  collaboration is onlypossible when the management of a school recognises the mental health challenges susceptible to youths, which social scientists relay are standard causes of disciplinary issues and poor grades (Richardson, Morrissette and Zucker, 2012, pp.24). (ii) The idea that human activity can impact the global climate was as previously controversial amongst the scientific community as it is now amongst the general public. Supporting a hypothesis of this magnitude required a prolonged process of scrutiny, thus a few contrarian papers would have seen publication in scientific literature. Including the ones by Shaviv (2002), Svensmark (1998), Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), and, Marsh and Svensmark (2000) which undermined human impact by considering cosmic causes. The media and some organisations then leverage on these examples, as well as similar others, to contest the causes of global warming in public discourse; albeit mostly ignoring the scientific consensus while cherry-picking their sources (Benestad et al., 2015; Rahmstorf, 2012). For instance, Canadian organisation Friends of Science based their website and forum discussions on one contrarian paper that understated the extent of the greenhouse effect (Benestad et al., 2015; Miskolczi, 2010). In Norway, an organisation called Klimarealistene periodically issues leaflets to school headmasters and students conveying opinions from contrarian scientists to dismiss the conclusions drawn by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Benestad et al., 2015; Klimarealistene.com, 2016). They have also used the popular website forskning.no to promote controversial content targeted at the general public. On YouTube, delusive videos including The Great Global Warming Swindle and The Cloud Mystery remain highly accessible by anyone online. The videos were professionally produced with the advice of contrarian scientists to persuade viewers into believing that volcanic eruptions produced more carbon dioxide than humans could (Durkin, 2007), and that changes in the Sun’s energy output are responsible for global temperatures to fluctuate (Mortensen and Svensmark, 2008). Many conspiracy theories have emerged alleging that the scientific consensus for anthropogenic climate change does not exist or that scientists defrauded the public with scare tactics (White, 2012, p.49). Perhaps the greatest dissenting voice in the climate change debate is the United States of America, where a 2015 study identified 4,556 opinion leaders and their affiliation to 164 denial networks, including salient organisations4 Referring to famed individuals including scientists, politicians, celebrities and presenters who4 possess a certain degree of authority, credibility, or social influence. of6 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 7.
  like the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and The Heartland Institute (Farell, 2015; Roston, 2015). Denial networks have played an active role in the public discourse and dissemination of content at variance with the notions held by most climatologists (Benestad et al., 2015; Rahmstorf, 2012). As stated by these groups, the earth undergoes a natural warming and cooling cycle, much like the annual changing of seasons, regardless of the amount of carbon dioxide humans are capable of emitting (Benestad et al., 2015). However, such factors have been taken into consideration when developing climate models (Rennie, 2009). The collective research by scientists from a multitude of national, political, and social backgrounds have not found evidence of a conspiracy (Rennie, 2009), but of recent climates dramatically changing in geological terms (Anderegg et al., 2010). As well, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide detected has been steadily increasing each year, running the greenhouse effect amok (Esrl.noaa.gov, 2016). Ergo, the scientific consensus maintains that human influences are the most likely of causes for altering earth’s climate (Anderegg et al., 2010). The above examples show the importance of science communication in present- day and how it can benefit those who might not be direct recipients of its message when its goals are achieved. Science communication reaches to people in authority positions as well as the general public, making it especially relevant in today’s knowledge economy and progressive society (Gregory & Miller, 1998). However, more importantly for the discussions in this paper, the examples show how some activities in the guise of science communication can ironically generate pseudoscience and moral panics in the lay public. Content that is overtly packaged to ‘inform’ may not always benefit its intended publics (Jenkins, 2006), as audiences exposed to such content may respond radically towards those messages and become more personally than objectively invested in it (ibid., pp. 235-238). This happens when the public strongly believes they have been oppressed by scientists, but are unaware that they have been presented with fallacious arguments and false information, nor have they perceived beyond the general notion that science is historically and intrinsically controversial despite its contributions to society (Benestad et al., 2015; Cosce.org, 2015). This is a stigma which science communication has to overcome because the large majority of audiences are not scientists, hence they might develop irrational fears towards scientists given their lack of understanding on the methods used in modern science (ibid.). of7 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 8.
  3. Understanding the World Audience This chapter appliesthe concepts of hypodermic needle model, two-step Blow, and uses and gratiBications to gain an understanding of the audience from different perspectives, as well to discuss the limitations and threats encountered in science communication using various approaches. The hypodermic needle posits a passive audience who acts accordingly to what the media asks of them (Katz & Lazasfeld, 1955). This would mean that the audience believes every science-related content they have consumed through every form of media, regardless if a blog, campaign brochure, advertisement, broadcast programme, scientific manuscript or textbook. In other words, the hypodermic needle model would view even today’s audience as singular and homogenous, but also unquestioning and complying to the ideological perspectives of mainstream and niche channels. This model makes more sense when the audience is seen as a self-contained group exposed to one key message at a time. And it would mean that the audience remains unexposed to other media messages within a given time or place. For example, political parties may use the effects of propaganda to recruit members by cutting or limiting access to contrarian content, global search engines, and other forms of mass communication beyond its territory of control. China has extremely limited access to global sites like Google and Facebook, but deploys its own search engine and social networking site Baidu and Baidu Space to maximally conserve its sociopolitical values. This facilitates the Chinese government to craft, monitor, and regulate media messages in accordance to its interests, and is a treatment given similarly to manufacture subordination in special cadet trainings. Present- day militant groups like Isis and the Anti-balaka use propaganda for recruitment and public support over social media sites by manipulating the content of its media. Although the hypodermic needle theory is criticised for its linear communication model, it continues to affect the way researchers view the powerful effects of the media. According to Gerbner (2002, pp.47), the more exposure an audience gains to a particular media message, the more likely that they believe the message to be real. Despite having more variation of content available in the Web 2.0 era, audiences who are coerced or choose to consume content from the same channel over prolonged periods of time could of8 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 9.
  be injecting themselveswith the hypodermic needle effect. From a sociological perspective, this phenomenon may be referred as Groupthink (Weaver, 2007, pp.821-833). According to social scientist Kimberlee Weaver (2007), Groupthink states that groups are unable to critically assess contrarian viewpoints because the individual seeks to be a member of the group. This causes individual members to conform their emotional, behavioural, and thought patterns to ones held by the group (ibid.), accept opinions from within that have been repeated to them three times or more (ibid.), and make irrational decisions through their group identity (ibid.). This may explain the rise of fringe beliefs and antiestablishment groups in the Web 2.0 era, including ones that are currently against science and scientists. Further, today’s world audience is likely to be more divided than the number of countries on the map, to a point where many different and opposing views exist within the society, as the Internet allows all opinions to be heard and ascribed by the individual when production and consumption of media are not tightly policed. This causes another sociological phenomenon between two or more groups, known as Group Polarisation (Weaver, 2007, pp.821-833), where intergroup relations worsen because each group pushes to adopt a more extreme stance in their views and values in order to differentiate themselves from other groups. These trends do not indicate good prospects for science communication, which at its inception already stands between two very distinct groups: scientists and the lay public. Hence, when both groups try too hard to validate their values and ‘versions’ of what is true, they end up drifting further apart, which is the opposite effect of what science and the public seek from each other. The two-step flow model views audiences as partly active, in that after being exposed to a media they refer to an opinion leader before preferring it (Katz, 1957). According to Katz (1957), an opinion leader can be an esteemed individual, authority or celebrity who endorses a viewpoint publicly. This model posits that opinion leaders play a key role in media effects, as the messages endorsed by opinion leaders have greater weighting than the messages conveyed from a particular media (ibid.). For instance, students may consult professors regarding anthropogenic climate change after hearing or reading about it from the news before believing the media. Or, pet owners may use the advice given by professional veterinaries regarding feeding animals with human snacks, before believing online articles that warn of the dangers of feeding chocolate to dogs. In the context of science communication, this means that messages from traditional means of relaying information to the public (i.e., research papers, academic texts, scientific of9 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 10.
  databases) may, throughthe ideas and thoughts expressed by an opinion leader (e.g., IFLScience, National Geographic, Food Babe, The Doctor Oz Show, etc.), be either amplified to benefit lay audiences with a premise set in everyday context ; or, skewed to appeal to5 popularity subjecting audiences to their own confirmation biases. Noting that the tricky6 process of science communication demands a balance between attracting viewership and scientific accuracy (Gregory & Miller, 1998), it explains the inclination that content producers have towards the former as they may not be formally trained to interpret scientific texts. Further, producers could be motivated by the prospect of generating maximum profit from a non-scientist audience, thus, leaving the domain of science communication (overtly or discreetly) to enter science commodiBication. In the book, The CommodiBication of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, Hans Radder (2010) defines science commodification as the transformation of scientific knowledge into objects of economic trade and value (ibid., p.4). The goal of science commodification is to generate profit using the name of ‘science’ regardless of its contribution to science or scientists (ibid.), which is crucially different from the goals of science communication. In this sense, science is being treated as a brand rather than an academic discipline by the cultural industries. Examples of science commodification are plenty, including an exhaustive list of everyday products for wellness (e.g., shiatsu massage chairs, anti-bacterial toothpaste, memory foam mattresses), beauty (e.g., hydrating technology, green tea extract, whitening formula), and nutrition (e.g., 100% organic, gluten-free, low-carb, high protein); household equipment (e.g., anti-fungal furniture, ionised air-conditioning, what kills 99.9% bacteria); apparels and gear (e.g., orthopaedic footwear, titanium rackets), etcetera. Examples of science commodification in the media are science-fiction films including Star Wars and Avatar; advertisements; documentaries; talk shows like The Doctor Oz Show; and books like The Food Babe Way — all of which have produced science-related content for profit. To discuss scientific discoveries in more digestible forms, usually following headlines like, ‘Here’s 5 what you need to know about vaccination and autism’ or ‘Why is sleep important to improve your memory’. To sensationalise science-related content, usually using buzz words like, ‘cure’, ‘organic’,6 ‘technology’, or phrases, ‘science still can’t explain…’, ‘scientists were wrong…’, ‘industry-funded science’, etcetera. of10 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 11.
  The notion thatscience is the engine of prosperity is still largely accepted by the public (ibid.). Because of that, products marketed with a ‘scientific’ component in them tend to be perceived as revolutionary or highly developed (ibid.), and leveraging on the latest scientific buzzwords to sell one’s product is mainly a promotional and marketing strategy with little to do with science (ibid.). Increasing the desirability of science-related content/products furthermore, as Horkheimer and Adorno (1979) highlighted about cultural industries, is that the audience/consumer takes significant pleasure from cultural industries and will pay attention/money for the products it proposes with negligible resistance even if they become aware of being manipulated. To quote Horkheimer and Adorno (ibid., pp. 167), “The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them”. Some productions of science- related content are overtly profit-driven and overtly fictional (e.g., science-fiction films) where the audience/consumer are not expected to believe its message wholesale, hence, the audience/consumer understands that any paid attention or money by them is an exchange for entertainment. However, other productions of science-related content are more discreet about generating profit (e.g., The Doctor Oz Show, and The Food Babe Way)7 and creates ‘informative’ content where the audience/consumer are expected to believe its message, hence, the audience/consumer presumes that paying attention or money to such content is an exchange for facts, real science or premium information of some sort. This effect on the audience/consumer is in line with the two step flow model, because said science-related content producers were able to package themselves as the opinion leader for decoding scientific texts to an audience. Whether opinion leaders get science right or wrong depends on their social conscience , and through them, the non-scientist audience8 may never know what they did not know about science. The uses and gratiBication model differs from the aforementioned models in that it studies what the audience do with the media instead of what the media can do to the audience (Blumler & Katz, 1974). It posits an audience actively making use of the media to fulfil a range of purposes, including the desire for information, social connection, and entertainment (ibid.). This model changes the perspective on power distribution, that Both have publicly denied that their content is profit-driven and bogus, but have been referred by7 doctors and scientists as media charlatans (Vox, 2016; Rubin, 2015). The next chapter discusses the approach that science communicators ought to take in order to8 bridge the gap between science and the public. of11 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 12.
  significant amount ofit lies with the audience and not with the producers (ibid.), because the active audience selects the media they want to consume and does so in relation to their needs, rather than simply accepting whatever is presented to them (ibid.). As well, this approach takes into account the audience’s personalities, where different individuals will find their needs satisfied by different types of media. Hence, suggesting that media producers are obliged to create varied content to satisfy a heterogeneous audience. This is evident in the wide range of media genres, channels, stories, and content available to date. One way which reflects the uses and gratification’s description of the modern-day selective audience is through the subscription rates on YouTube. The following table shows the top versus the least subscribed channels on YouTube in year 2016 .9 Table 1: Subscription rates of YouTube channels in 2016 Table 1 shows that, ‘comedy’ and ‘film and entertainment’ genres are amongst the top trimestrial (33.3 per cent) of YouTube channels with 26 million out of 48 million estimated total subscribers, representing 54 per cent of total subscribers from around the world (Youtube, 2016b). While ‘science and education’ and ‘news and politics’ channels Channel Estimated number of subscribers Comedy 22 million Gaming 7 million Sports 5 million Film and Entertainment 4 million Beauty and Fashion 2 million Animation 2 million Tech 2 million Music 1 million Cooking and Health 1 million Science and Education 1 million News and Politics 1 million Automative 475 thousand Information obtained from: https://www.youtube.com/channels9 of12 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 13.
  are, to alarge extent, less popular amongst the total subscribers from around the world with an estimated difference of 24 million subscribers compared to ‘comedy’ and ‘film and entertainment’ (ibid.). This stark difference in number represents a dichotomy between entertainment and informative content regarding the general preference that the world audience have, that is entertainment (ibid.), hence the number of subscribers to its channels (ibid.). According to Blumler and Katz (1975), individuals may choose to consume a media for four main uses: diversion, interpersonal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance. ‘Diversion’ refers to individuals who selects a media to relax and unwind from their daily routine, stresses or boredom (ibid.). They also seek entertainment or drama genres for emotional release, filling time, alongside getting cultural and aesthetic enjoyment (ibid.). ‘Interpersonal relationships’ refers to the audience’s selection of a particular media to carry out social roles and interaction (ibid.). For example, watching movies and television together with one’s in-group; using gaming channels to make friends; using Facebook to gain insight into the circumstances of others; and using YouTube videos to teach a class. ‘Personal identity’ refers to a fundamental component of the human condition — the need to define oneself (ibid.). Hence, the audience might use a preferred media channel to reinforce personal values, learn about social norms, and use social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube to ascribe themselves to a particular social group (a parallel of ‘personal identity’ was drawn in previous paragraphs discussing the ‘hypodermic needle effect’ and ‘groupthink’; this passage cements the notion that humans are social beings who use the media to locate themselves and others). ‘Surveillance’ refers to the need for information to perform certain tasks (e.g., a student using research databases to write an assignment), to understand the world (e.g., using the Internet), and to satisfy one’s curiosities and general interests (e.g., clicking on science-related content, cooking videos, political news, etc.). Amongst the available YouTube channels shown in Table 1, ‘comedy’ as well as ‘film and entertainment’ intrinsically offers the entertainment value sought by the audience described by Blumler and Katz (1975), with at least 54 per cent of subscribers (Youtube, 2016b), indicating that majority of the world audience are escapist in character. YouTube is host to over 1 billion users worldwide, and every day its audience watch hundreds of of13 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 14.
  millions of hoursand generate billions of views (Youtube, 2016a). These counterintuitively suggest that scientific content should offer more entertainment value in order to maximise its outreach to the public, considering ‘science and education’ channels are currently amongst the least popular media with the world audience. Moreover, the fact that 22 million people have subscribed to ‘comedy’ channels on YouTube alone shows that seeking entertainment is an innate quality about human beings; even in the non-media context, people naturally aspire to perform on stage, crack jokes with friends, and tell stories. In fact, storytelling began since the dawn of mankind, which anthropologists believe has an evolutionary link to humans’ ability to speak. To borrow a quote from the book, The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre, author Jack Zipes (2012, pp.2) wrote, “Though it is impossible to trace the historical origins and evolution of fairy tales to a particular time and place, we do know that humans began telling tales as soon as they developed the capacity of speech. They may have even used sign language before speech originated to communicate vital information for adapting to their environment.” Although the onset of storytelling and human speech is a chicken-and-egg question, the development of numerous languages and symbols in the world, as well as the evolution of media semiotics in advertisements to date, indubitably indicates the human desire to convey emotionally-charged, contextual messages to each other. This is a common area of weakness in science communication, because it can be particularly challenging for the lay audience to decode scientific texts when they cannot see how it relates to everyday life. On the other hand, it is inconvenient for scientists to relay objective data to the public in the form of a story, because they are obstinately accustomed to encode and decode scientific texts. 4. The Salient Role of Science Communicators This chapter negotiates the power audiences have in determining content production with non-profit driven producers who work to make accurate science content inviting for the public to consume, thus, appealing to the notion of an interdependent relationship between producers and audiences. Past academic studies of science communication assume a two-party relationship of14 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 15.
  — scientists andnon-scientists — where scientific messages were disseminated in top- down fashion from the scientists to the public (Gregory & Miller, 1998). However, the assumptions that developed this communication model correspond to those in the hypodermic needle model, which viewed the audience as highly docile. Later, communication researchers address the many limitations of using linear communication models in studying science communication, as increasing evidence suggest that audiences significantly prefer to use the media for their pleasure and convenience (Olson, 2009; as aforementioned in Table 1), and would easily oppose intense scientific content as they perceive it to add little value to, or even subtract from, their personal lives (ibid.). This cements the notion of ‘diversion’ posited by Blumler and Katz (1975). Today, the study of science communication considers how the Internet has revolutionised information production, consumption, and dissemination; substituting past purist perspectives with recognition for a third party, the science communicators, particularly those who use social media channels (Olson, 2009). Examples of established science communicators include: Elise Andrew, famous British blogger for social media channel IFLScience; Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, author and blogger for Neil deGrasse Tyson; Hank Green, musician and founder of YouTube channel SciShow; and Michael Stevens, video producer and founder of YouTube channels Vsauce, Vsauce2 and Vsauce3, which he designed to offer content that shifts between scientific intensity and gaming entertainment across the three channels. In general, science communicators also include presenters from traditional mass media such as David Attenborough and the late Steve Irwin, who leveraged on their celebrity and nationality to rally national support for wildlife conservation. Both types of science communicators serve as everyday gatekeepers between science and the public, whilst working towards the goals of science communication. Science communicators play an important role in how the public would respond to science, scientists, and scientific texts. However, good science communicators coexist with bad science communicators; as examined in the previous chapter on opinion leaders, suggesting to some extent audiences are still at the mercy of media producers when it comes to understanding science beyond the classroom, because science can be extra counterintuitive and difficult to grasp (e.g., ‘Is evolution real?’, ‘Are chemicals and genetically modiBied foods safe for consumption?’, ‘How can global warming be real when winters are getting colder in some places?’, etc.). By an expert use of content packaging, media of15 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 16.
  channels, and communicationstyles; science communicators create the difference between a positive and negative reaction in the public (ibid.). The following examines some performances from three science communicators using the concepts conceived by Jennifer Briselli (2013), in her masters thesis, Demanufacturing Doubt: A Design Strategy for Science Communication. Jennifer Briselli (2013, pp.59-60) designed a framework for how science communication can be more effective based on research done for social sciences, classic rhetoric, and communication studies. It reflects a multifaceted understanding science communicators ought to have; including the ability to explain, interpret, apply, gain perspective, empathise, and possess self-knowledge (ibid.). As well, Briselli’s framework is an expansion of the ethos, pathos, and logos model used in the study of persuasive communication, where she applies the appeals to credibility, emotion, and logic in a modern context (ibid.). Coined as The Design Strategy for Science Communication framework, it contains the following six components (ibid.): (i) self-reBlection, which is the science communicators’ understanding of how their personal values influence their communication; (ii) empathy, which is the understanding of how people’s values influence their perception; (iii) identity afBirmation, which is the designing of information to appeal to each group of people; (iv) non-threatening messaging, which emphasises framing information in non-alienating and non-judgmental language; (v) pluralistic advocacy, which is the use of multiple worldviews to build a conclusion; and (vi) emotional resonance, which is the use of relevant metaphors and storytelling to create meaning for the audience. Borrowing the above concepts while excluding self-reBlection and empathy (these cannot be falsified), the following evaluates three science communicators and their performances. of16 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 17.
  Table 2: Performancesof Neil deGrasse Tyson Table 2 shows three Twitter postings made by prominent science communicator, Neil deGrasse Tyson. In Quote 1, Tyson used a derogatory tone in his statement against political and religious groups, implying such people as inferior to scientists. In Quote 2, Tyson brought his insult to the world audience, implying that humans are unworthy. In Quote 3, Tyson undermined the enthusiasm of an interest group that is potentially valuable to science and scientists in generating public support for space exploration and research. In these three Twitter postings, Tyson had failed to achieve Briselli’s (2013, pp.60) identity afBirmation, because his messages were offensive to numerous social groups which also form a large population of the public. As well, Tyson failed to observe Briselli’s non- threatening messaging by passing critical judgments on said groups. Based on Table 2, Tyson did not score as a good science communicator. His performances were socially divisive fitting the description of Group Polarisation (Weaver, 2007), and could potentially be feeding into this phenomenon, which works against the goals of science communication. In the world of Web 2.0, any content that is generated by the user stays online for an unlimited period of time, hence, even if the user deletes the offensive postings from their accounts, other members from the world audience might be disseminating a recording of it to continue its damage.
 Quoted from Twitter account, @neiltyson Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote 1: “Anytime scientists disagree, it’s because we have insufBicient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I’m right or you’re right, or we’re both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conBlict resolution does not exist in politics or religion.”
 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html Quote 2: “Perhaps we’ve never been visited by aliens because they have looked upon Earth and decided there's no sign of intelligent life.”
 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html Quote 3: “Space enthusiasts are the most susceptible demographic to delusion that I have ever seen.”
 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html of17 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 18.
  Table 3: Performancesof SciShow (Hank Green) Table 3 contains two YouTube links to ‘science and education’ channel, SciShow. In Video 1, Hank Green interviews Rebecca Durham on an esoteric topic of biocrust, with guest appearance Jessi Knudsen who works in wildlife conservation. Green had partly observed Briselli’s (2013, pp.60) non-threatening messaging by conducting the interview in a non-judgmental language for audiences who may not be animal lovers. However, the topic of biocrust is too alienating for many who may not even have heard that term before, and should not have appeared in the video title. Although Green was working towards the goals of science communication, Video 1 is considerably more informative than entertaining, and may explain the low number of views (98 thousand) it achieved compared to Video 2. Video 1 creates an impression of boredom in most audiences with an indirect mode of address, and does not appeal to the majority on YouTube who is interested in using it for entertainment as examined in the previous chapter. In Video 2 (188 thousand views), Green presents the methods for reversing the effects of pollution on oceans. Green achieved Briselli’s (ibid.) non-threatening messaging by using simple language for a large audience who might not understand the complexities involved in cleaning oceans. For example, at 3:49 minutes, Green expressed using plain words, “No matter how we do it, cleaning up the oceans will be hard.” Also, by using “we” in that statement and in the video title, Green is including the world audience to heed his message on environmentalism and is not being socially divisive like the Twitter postings made by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Despite using a direct mode of address (Green faced and looked into the camera directly) to convey seriousness, Green remained non-judgmental towards the world audience and balances his seriousness with an informal presentation style. Overall, Video 2 is in line with the goals of science communication to enable informed decision-making and to address misinformation to the public, albeit lacking in entertainment value. Performances SciShow Video 1: Biocrust with Rebecca Durham 
 Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIEg-Ei_BCM Video 2: How Can We Clean Up the Oceans? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8pjnjZcF8 of18 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 19.
  Table 4: Performancesof Vsauce (Michael Stevens) Table 4 contains two links to the popular YouTube channel, Vsauce. In Video 1, Michael Stevens explores the trending fringe belief of a flat Earth. Stevens consistently scored for Briselli’s (ibid.) non-threatening messaging by using a language that is witty and conversational, suiting all audiences. Stevens also achieved Briselli’s (ibid.) identity afBirmation, by appealing to both the flat-earth and round-earth believers, as seen right at the beginning of the video, when mentioned that scientists have measured and discovered that the state of Kanas is literally flatter than a pancake. In a non-judgmental manner, between 0:24 to 1:51 minutes, Stevens used a computer-generated animation to mathematically simulate how navigation on a flat Earth would turn out, thus giving flat- earth believers an opportunity to consume science despite their beliefs. Between 2:00 to 2:12 minutes, Stevens appealed to the round-earth believers by illustrating how a sphere is the most energy-efficient configuration and hence the earth must be round — a digestible piece of information that even round-earth believers may not know about. While he explains that a flat earth would require tremendous amounts of energy to hold itself together in that form, as subtly as he can to address the misinformation in the flat-earth belief. Stevens also provided Briselli’s (ibid.) emotional resonance, using a parable at 9:31 minutes to create deeper meaning than simply the Earth being flat or round, where he said, “Our knowledge about the outside world might be the same. A puzzle with no answer key, just the reassurance that the answers we think we know Bit together, so they’re probably correct” suggesting that both flat-earth and round-earth believers should question their preconceived notions and challenge popular opinion. This is critically in line with the goal of science communication to generate more informed thought processes in people. Instead of concluding his video with the obvious truth, Stevens gave a conclusion that is applicable to all people from all walks of life when he said at 10:05 minutes, “Some people say, ‘How can you live without knowing?’ I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing — that is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know”, thus achieving Briselli’s Performances Vsauce Video 1: Is Earth Actually Flat? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs Video 2: Math Magic Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJzfyACM of19 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 20.
  (ibid.) pluralistic advocacy as well. InVideo 2, Stevens explores the seemingly magical appearance of coincidences through probability. Similarly, Stevens’s use of language is easy to understand, non- judgmental, and filled with humour, scoring Briselli’s (ibid.) standard of non-threatening messaging. From the very first instant, Stevens catches the attention of the scientific and non-scientific audience with the video titled, “Math Magic”, suggesting both mathematics and magic are performed in the video, which it did. The audience were not disappointed. Between 0:54 minutes and 1:35 minutes, Stevens creatively engages the audience by asking them to actively participate in his magic trick, appealing to the reality of an active audience. By doing so, Stevens is giving audiences their entertainment value right at the beginning, which is critical to retain their attention for the rest of the video. In what seemed to be a failed magic trick, Stevens jokingly pointed out that seven members of the audience would probably thought the trick worked; slyly beginning to explain the mathematics behind. At 2:23 minutes in, Stevens referenced an actual research paper to reveal an interesting statistic about what poker cards most people tend to think of when they get asked during a magic trick. At 2:38 minutes, Stevens quickly switched back to saying something intriguing, “But would it be more amazing if it actually was magic? Yes and no…” At this point, Stevens has appealed to both scientific and non-scientific audiences, thus achieving Briselli’s (ibid.) notion of identity afBirmation. By the end of the video, Stevens achieved both Briselli’s (ibid.) emotional resonance and pluralistic advocacy when he said at 18:16 minutes, “That is how big 52 factorial is… But now think about the number of possible people, the number of different humans there could be is even larger. What that means is that even though you would probably die, most people, including the smartest or the funniest, or most annoying won’t even get to die like you do — they won’t even get to be born. So, I’m glad you’re here” giving a conclusion that is both emotionally-charged and applicable to anyone. Based on Table 4, Stevens had achieved all of Briselli’s (ibid.) components for effective science communication. As well, Stevens was able to find a balance between maintaining scientific accuracy and attracting viewership (10 million views for Video 1, and 4 million views for Video 2), while giving his audience plenty of entertainment value and relating scientific texts to everyday life, appealing even to the most unscientific of audiences (flat-earth believers). Amongst the three science communicators discussed in of20 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 21.
  this chapter, MichaelStevens scored for the best type of science communicator, followed by Hank Green, followed by Neil deGrasse Tyson, in descending order. Once again, this shows that the tricky process of science communication can be executed excellently, however, it depends on having the right science communicator. 5. A New Media For A New Audience
 Traditionally, science is communicated to the public through the manuscripts and books (reaching mainly to experts), and television and radio (to the masses). Although most manuscripts and books have been made available online and accessible to the public, these materials still do not reach the general public well because they are not appealing to the audiences’ needs, as discussed in the previous chapters. First introduced by Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998), the diffused audience is the twenty-first century audience who is connected to electronic mediums in every aspect of private, social and working life. In private, the user may do banking transactions or watch videos online. The diffused audience may also seek social interaction through gaming and social media channels, or use emails and search engines for work. There are three basic features for any social media, including YouTube and Facebook: (i) constructing a profile, (ii) generating a list of contacts, and (iii) being able to interact with members from those listed in their contacts or found within the social media network. According to Meikle and Young (2012, pp.65-68), social media epitomises the characteristics of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 describes the rise of a participatory culture (e.g., commenting, liking, re-blogging) that encourages user-generated content including (blogging, status updates, intellectual property), sharing of images, videos and music, and collaboration amongst online users (communities who share the same interests). This level of connectivity (i.e., social networking sites) can serve the two groups of people engaging in science communication well. In particular, experts would be able to promote their professional profiles, form a network with journalists, reach new audiences, recruit prospective students, act as a public voice for science, make their research accessible, create outreach and funding opportunities, as well as open the doors for future collaboration. And laypeople can benefit from having background scientific knowledge to issues that directly impact their quality of life and society or workplace. Social networking of21 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 22.
  sites including slideshare.net, academia.edu, and reddit.com/r/asksciencehave adapted to let avid users consult directly with scientists of different fields, and share relevant research papers or supplementary materials. To add, there are many science channels on social media that all contribute to this science database — blogs, videos, wikis and forums. This provides an opportunity for anyone on the planet with internet access to gather scientific information that cannot be found in traditional media nor are available in the immediate offline environment. Those connected online using a smartphone or tablet may access scientific information while on the move as well, enabling learning to take place at more places and times. By broadcasting research results to a wider audience and leveraging on participatory culture of social media, it also counteracts scientific misinformation (Pasquali, 2007). Now more people are able to participate in science unlike before. For example, in the field of astrophysics, the task of classifying over a million galaxies from photos taken by robotic telescopes is overwhelming to say the least. Fortunately, the collaboration of thousands of online volunteers have helped to sieve through petabytes of data, and discovered something new which astronomers themselves have missed all along. The group of volunteers noticed that in the background of an image there were certain peculiar green round objects. A few hundred of those volunteers came forward to ask the scientists what those were. The scientists investigated the green objects, and later found out that they were galaxies undergoing a dramatic burst of star formation. These were the most efficient makers of stars anywhere in the local universe and yet had been missed by professional astronomers. It was only thanks to the help of a quarter-million people at their own chairs and their internet connections that the discovery had been made. Galaxy Zoo is just one of many other host projects inviting the public to get involved in science. More collaborations like these can helped science progress faster into the future. Of all media technologies, video hosting sites provide the best platform for laypeople to gain the awareness and background understanding of science-related topics. This is because of information on the video can be conveyed in the least static way to help construct a better understanding for the audience. Research have shown that concurrent use of visual and auditory information channels (i.e., the video) greatly increase the knowledge being retained by a viewer (Darzentas et al., 2007, pp.886), including illustrations, infographics, animation, sounds and voiceovers. As well, content can be scripted to include interesting narratives that makes static information more relatable and of22 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 23.
  applicable to everydaylife (which helps information to be absorbed faster), and content can be presented by a likeable, charismatic presenter (which helps to make a topic more interesting). 6. Conclusion 
 Science communication is a vital process of information sharing today. Once individuals leave their schools, the media are their main channels for being informed about scientific advances and discoveries, particularly in the current context of rapid scientific change. Science communication can be a powerful social force that amends laws and policies to reflect the values and ethics of an institution, society or country (as discussed in Chapter 2.2). For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the media. While some consumers use the media for trivial purposes, others use it to locate themselves and others, and define their sense of self in a social context larger than the immediate family, forming group identities through the media. As discussed in Chapter 3, when two or more groups try too hard to validate their values and ‘versions’ of what is true, they may trigger a group polarisation effect. Group polarisation has been identified in the climate-change deniers (in Chapter 2), as well as in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s (in Chapter 4), where both adopted more extreme stances in their views while increasing distance from those who do not share the same values as them. This is particularly concerning as scientists and the public should be working towards a closer communication relationship. This can be intervened by science communicators. However, just like the game of Chinese Whispers, in which a message gets distorted after passing it down through different parties between the source and end receiver, the public do not consume pure science from science communicators. While scientists themselves are not necessarily in the best position to communicate scientific texts to the lay public, for they may lack training in public communication and understanding of how the mass media works. To make matters worse, media charlatans in the guise of opinion leaders for science can feed the public with false information, working against the goals of science communication. These profit-driven producers exists because the lay audience grants them the power to produce bogus informative content. The lay audience may never know that the content is bogus, or they may choose to reject contrarian viewpoints due to of23 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 24.
  the effect ofgroupthink (as discussed in Chapter 3). Rather than using more informative content to change the views of the public, which may feed into group polarisation, this paper has found the entertainment genre to be least socially destructive yet the most preferred genre amongst the world audience (shown in Table 1). Hence, the need for more entertainment value in science content. However, good science communicators are hard to come by, as Chapter 4 shows, Vsauce (Michael Stevens) was the only one who could offer both high entertainment value and scientific accuracy in both performances. Even when SciShow (Hank Green) performed well for scientific accuracy, he lacked in entertainment value. Although in Chapter 3, the audience appears to be in control of determining what content gets produced, as how they are capable of driving Food Babe, The Dr Oz Show, and the significantly high subscription rates for entertainment content on YouTube; the real work comes from the science communicators who must develop a multifaceted understanding of how to make science entertaining (as discussed in Chapter 4). The audience wants something which they can relate to that also entertains and interests them (as discussed in Chapter 4). But the critical role of science communicators demands the use of accurate science; hence, they must develop the intelligence and creative skills necessary to satisfy both the public and scientists, while working towards the goals of science communication at the same time. Science communicators are put in a tight position to attract viewership while maintaining scientific integrity in the content they produce, but they continue to find ways to achieve both things, hence are also cultural intermediaries. However, they must remember that science communication is public communication where the feedback of the audience matters. It is vastly different from science education, which is an academic discipline. The world audience desires entertainment, as proven in Chapters 3 and 4 because humans naturally seek it, and can get intimate with this genre the best, to calm their bored, lonely, stressed, and overworked minds. 
 of24 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 25.
  Bibliography Abercrombie, N. andLonghurst, B. (1998). Audiences. London: Sage Anderegg, W., Prall, J., Harold, J. and Schneider, S. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [online] 107(27), pp.12107-12109. Available at: http:// www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf [Accessed 10 Jan. 2016]. Benestad, R., Nuccitelli, D., Lewandowsky, S., Hayhoe, K., Hygen, H., van Dorland, R. and Cook, J. (2015). Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. [online] Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5 [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Benneworth, P. (2009). The challenges for 21st century science — a review of the evidence base surrounding the value of public engagement by scientists. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 242684824_The_challenges_for_21_st_century_science_A_review_of_the_evidence_base_surrounding_t he_value_of_public_engagement_by_scientists [Accessed 6 Feb. 2016]. Bloom, S. (2015). Improving School and Community Outcomes For Children and Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioral Challenges. A Principal’s Guidebook: School-based Mental Health Programs. [online] Available at: https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/Childservice/docs/school-based-mhservices.pdf [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. Blumler, J. and Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communication. Newbury Park: Sage. BrainyQuote. (2016). Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes at BrainyQuote. [online] Available at: http:// www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. Briselli, J. (2016). Demanufacturing Doubt: A Design Strategy for Science Communication. Master's Degree. Carnegie Mellon University. [online] Available at: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1040&context=theses. [Accessed 7 Jun. 2016]. Carlson, D. (2002). Acceptance of Homosexuality: A Youth Movement. [online] Gallup.com. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/5341/acceptance-homosexuality-youth-movement.aspx [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. Carr, C. and Hayes, R. (2015). Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, [online] 23(1). Available at: http://my.ilstu.edu/~ctcarr/research/CarrHayes_2015.pdf [Accessed 11 Jan. 2016]. Cosce.org, (2015). Science and Society. [online] Available at: http://www.cosce.org/crece5_ingles.htm [Accessed 31 Dec. 2015]. Couldry, N. (2005). The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon. Media Audiences. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Darzentas, N., Goldovsky, L., Ouzounis, C., Karapiperis, K. and Karapiperis, C. (2007). Science communication media for scientists and the public. EMBO Reports, 8(10). Durkin, M. (2007). The Great Global Warming Swindle. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ of25 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 26.
  watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4 [Accessed 5Jan. 2016]. Ens-newswire.com, (2013). India Bans Captive Dolphin Shows as Morally Unacceptable. [online] Available at: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/20/india-bans-captive-dolphin-shows-as-morally-unacceptable/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016]. Esrl.noaa.gov, (2016). Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. [online] Available at: http:// www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html [Accessed 22 Feb. 2016]. Farrell, J. (2015). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change. Fnal.gov, (2014). The science of matter, space and time. [online] Available at: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ science/inquiring/matter/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. forskning.no, (2016). forskning.no. [online] Available at: http://forskning.no/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991). Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate. Science, 254(5032), pp.698-700. Garvey, W. (1979). Communication, the essence of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gerbner, G., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N. & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing Up with Television: Cultivation Processes. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed., ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (2000). Science In Public. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books. Hajdu, S. (2007). A Note from History: Persecution of Noted Physicians and Medical Scientists. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science, [online] 37(3), pp.295-297. Available at: http://www.annclinlabsci.org/ content/37/3/295.full.pdf+html [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (1979). Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press. Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal Influence. New York: The Free Press. Klimarealistene.com, (2016). Naturen. [online] Available at: http://www.klimarealistene.com/Naturen [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Krauss, L. (2015). What Einstein Got Wrong. Scientific American, (Volume 313, Issue 3). [online] Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-got-wrong/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Marsh, N. and Svensmark, H. (2000). Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85(23), pp.5004-5007. Miskolczi, F. (2010). The stable stationary value of the earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness. Energy & Environment, [online] 21(4), pp.243-262. Available at: http:// www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. of26 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 27.
  Mortensen, L. andSvensmark, S. (2008). The Cloud Mystery. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Olson, R. (2009). Don't be such a scientist. Washington: Island Press. Oxford Academic English. (2016). Science. [online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/science [Accessed 1 Jan. 2016]. Pasquali, M. (2007). Video in science. Protocol videos: the implications for research and society. EMBO Rep, 8, pp.712-716. Radder, H. (2010). The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. University of Pittsburgh Press. Rahmstorf, S. (2012). Is journalism failing on climate?. Environ. Res. Lett., [online] 7(4), pp.1-3. Available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/041003/pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Ramsey, L. (2015). Here's the critical reason Bill Nye the Science Guy changed his mind on GMOs. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.sg/bill-nye-explains-his-stance-on- gmos-2015-7/?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Rennie, J. (2009). Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. [online] Scientific American. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Richardson, T., Morrissette, M. and Zucker, L. (2012). School-Based Adolescent Mental Health Programs. Social Work Today, [online] 12(6). Available at: http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/ 111312p24.shtml [Accessed 13 Jan. 2016]. Roston, E. (2015). Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers. [online] Bloomberg.com. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing- america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Rubin, C. (2015). Taking On the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/style/taking-on-the-food-industry-one-blog-post-at-a-time.html [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. Science for All (2010a). Report and action plan from the Science for All Expert Group. [online] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/ all/files/2010/02/Science-forAll-Final-Report-WEB.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Science for All (2010b). Public Engagement with Science and Society – a conversational tool. [online] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/ scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/09/23/publicengagement-for-science-and-society-a-conversational-tool/. [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. SciShow, (2016a). How Can We Clean Up the Oceans?. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=7i8pjnjZcF8 [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. of27 28 Loo Jian Wei, Newell Northumbria: 14044277 Ÿ Kaplan: CT0232995
• 28.
  SciShow, (2016b). SciShowTalk Show: Biocrust with Rebecca Durham. [video] Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIEg-Ei_BCM [Accessed 5 Jun. 2016]. Shaviv, N. (2002). Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5). Solheim, J. (2012). En kommentar til ”Når akademikere villeder om klimaendringer” i Utdanning nr. 15/2012 - Utdanningsnytt. [online] Utdanningsnytt. Available at: http://utdanningsnytt.no/debatt/2012/oktober/ en-kommentar-til-nar-akademikere-villeder-om-klimaendringer-i-utdanning-nr.-152012-/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Statista, (2016). Internet users number 2005-2015. Statistic. [online] Available at: http://www.statista.com/ statistics/273018/number-of-internet-users-worldwide/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2016]. Sullivan, W. (1986). Is There A Past In The Future?. The New York Times. [online] Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/1986/12/30/science/is-there-a-past-in-the-future.html?pagewanted=1 [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016]. Svensmark, H. (1998). Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81(22), pp.5027-5030. Vox, F. (2016). Who's really harmed by Dr. Oz. [online] CNN. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/ 2015/04/27/opinions/vox-dr-oz-critics/ [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. Vanderbilt, T. (2016). The Psychology of Genre. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-psychology-of-genre.html?smid=fb- nytscience&smtyp=cur&_r=0 [Accessed 9 Jun. 2016]. Vsauce, (2014). Is Earth Actually Flat?. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=VNqNnUJVcVs [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. Vsauce, (2016). Math Magic. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJzfyACM [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016]. Weaver, K. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), pp.821-833. White, R. (2012). Climate change from a criminological perspective. New York: Springer, p.49. Youtube.com. (2016a). Statistics - YouTube. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/ statistics.html [Accessed 8 Jun. 2016]. Youtube.com. (2016b). YouTube. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/channels [Accessed 8 Jun. 2016]. Zipes, J. (2012). The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre. Princeton: Princeton University Press. of28 28