Contemporary high-profile scientists and their interactions with the community

References

• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blok, A., Jensen, M., & Kaltoft, P. (2008). Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 189–209. doi:10.1077/0963662506070176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burchell, K. (2007). Empiricist selves and contingent ‘others’: The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 145–162. doi:10.1177/0963662507060587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, P. M. D., & Bodmer, W. F. (1986). The public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 96–104. doi:10.1080/03057268608559932
   Google Scholar
• Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433–449. doi: 10.1177/0957926504043708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. doi:10.1177/1075547008316222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, P. R., & Russ, R. S. (2015). Dynamic framing in the communication of scientific research: Texts and interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 221–252. doi:10.1002/tea.21189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging scientific literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frewer, L., Hunt, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2003). The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 6(1), 75–85. doi: 10.1080/1366987032000047815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-normal science. In International Society for Ecological Economics (Ed.), Online Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics. Retrieved from http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. doi:10.1177/1075547013487513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244. doi: 10.1023/A:1025557512320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landström, C., Hauxwell-Baldwin, R., Lorenzoni, I., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2015). The (mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How experts view policy-makers, the media and publics. Science as Culture, 1–23. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.992333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton: Driffield: Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Mogendorff, K., te Molder, H., Gremmen, B., & van Woerkum, C. (2012). ‘Everyone may think whatever they like, but scientists … ’: Or how and to what end plant scientists manage the science-society relationship. Science Communication, 34(6), 727–751. doi:10.1177/1075547011433887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MORI. (2001). The role of scientists in public debate. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780461
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2009). Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., Boulton, G., Clarke, P., Eyton, D., & Norton, J. (2010). The independent climate change e-mails review. Retrieved from http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. V. (2011). One brief, shining moment? The impact of neo-liberalism on science curriculum in the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1273–1288. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.512368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. V., & Gunstone, R. F. (2009). Science curriculum in the market liberal society of the 21st century: ‘Re-visioning’ the idea of science for all. Research in Science Education, 39, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9069-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. V., & Mulhall, P. (2015, November 25). Getting it on the table: Using diagrams and graphs within an interview. Paper presented at the 2015 Contemporary Approaches to Research Symposium, Deakin University Melbourne City Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. V., Mulhall, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & Hart, C. E. (2015a). What account of science shall we give? A case study of scientists teaching first-year university subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1504–1523. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1042942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. V., Mulhall, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & Hart, C. E. (2015b). Eminent scientists and extended peer communities in a period of post-normal science. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Chicago, IL, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tosse, S. E. (2013). Aiming for social or political robustness? Media strategies among climate scientists. Science Communication, 35(1), 32–55. doi:10.1177/1075547012438465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science And Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science – the consequences of the ‘knowledge society’ for society and science. EMBO Reports, 3(8), 703–706. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kvf165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yearley, S. (2000). Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 105–122. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeatman, A. (2000). The politics of postpatrimonial governance. In T. Seddon & L. Angus (Eds.), Beyond nostalgia: Reshaping Australian education (pp. 170–185). Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar