GM Crops in Hungary: Comparing Mass Media Framing and Public Understanding of Technoscientific Controversy

References

• Acsády, J. and Ferencz, Z. (2008) Perception and attitudes towards biotechnology in Hungary, in: F. Molfino and F. Zucco (Eds) Women in Biotechnology: Creating Interfaces, pp. 93–106 (Dordrecht: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Bánáti, D. and Lakner, Z. (2006) Knowledge and acceptance of genetically modified foodstuffs in Hungary, Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 45(2), pp. 62–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W. (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis, Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), pp. 93–111. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W. (2005a) Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: Cultivation effects of the elite press, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), pp. 63–89. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W. (2005b) Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), pp. 5–22. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W. (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science, Science Technology and Society, 14(2), pp. 221–240. doi: 10.1177/097172180901400202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., Kohring, M., Allansdottir, A. and Gutteling, J. (2001) The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media, in: G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (Eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy, pp. 35–52 (London: Science Museum).
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C. and Shanahan, J. (2005) Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology, Science Communication, 26(4), pp. 347–367. doi: 10.1177/1075547005275443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U. and Leonarz, M. (2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support, Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), pp. 113–130. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M. (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues—theories of public communication of science, in: M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, pp. 57–76 (New York: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Cook, G., Robbins, P. T. and Pieri, E. (2006) “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions, Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), pp. 5–29. doi: 10.1177/0963662506058756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawley, C. E. (2007) Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers—a quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources, Science Communication, 28(3), pp. 314–346. doi: 10.1177/1075547006298253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993) Framing—toward Clarification of a fractured paradigm, Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (2009) Challenging Futures of Science in Society – Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues, (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union).
   Google Scholar
• Ezrahi, Y. (2008) Controlling biotechnology: Science, democracy and “civic epistemology”, Metascience, 17(2), pp. 177–198. doi: 10.1007/s11016-008-9201-6
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. (1992) Talking Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A. (1989) Media discourse and public-opinion on nuclear-power—a constructionist approach, American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), pp. 1–37. doi: 10.1086/229213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Mejlgaard, N., Revuelta, G., Schreiner, C., Torgersen, H. and Wagner, W. (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Final Report on Eurobarometer 64.3. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/eb_64_3_final_report_second_edition_july_06.pdf (accessed 24 February 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Hampel, J., Mejlgaard, N., Quintanilha, A., Rammer, A., Revuelta, G., Stoneman, P., Torgersen, H. and Wagner, W. (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of Change? Available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf (accessed 22 May 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G. and Signorielli, N. (1986) Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process, in: J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds) Perspectives on Media Effects, pp. 17–40 (Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates).
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T. (2003) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left (Berkeley: University of California Press).
   Google Scholar
• Hardt, H. (1992) Critical Communication Studies: Essays on Communication, History and Theory in America, (London: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Harper, K. (2004) The genius of a nation versus the gene-tech of a nation: Science, identity, and genetically modified food in Hungary, Science as Culture, 13(4), pp. 471–492. doi: 10.1080/0950543042000311823
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, L. and Kitzinger, J. (1999) The human drama of genetics: ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ media representations of inherited breast cancer, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21(5), pp. 560–578. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Brossard, D. and Scheufele, D. A. (2008) Effects of value predispositions, Mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), pp. 171–192. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornig Priest, S. (1994) Structuring public debate on biotechnology, Science Communication, 16(2), pp. 166–179. doi: 10.1177/0164025994016002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, E., Kitzinger, J. and Murdock, G. (2008) Media Discourses and Framing of Risk. Working Paper 27. Available at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/KitzingerWkPaper27.pdf (accessed 8 December 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (Eds.) (2004) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• Karácsony, G. (2001) Értékek és választások [Values and choices], Educatio, 22(3), pp. 504–516.
   Google Scholar
• Kasza, G. and Lakner, Z. (2012) Social trenches in the GM food battlefield: Experiences of a survey series in Hungary, in: P. Robbins (Ed) Exploring Central and Eastern Europe’s Biotechnology Landscape, pp. 131–156 (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Király, G. (2007) Democratization of science and technology in Europe. Participation of Citizens in a Post-national community, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, ELTE, Budapest, Hungary.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. (2007) Framing and frame analysis, in: E. Devereux (Ed) Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, pp. 134–161 (London: Sage).
   Google Scholar
• Lakner, Z. and Kasza, G. (2005) Hungarian consumers and genetic engineering, Soziale Technik, 15(2), pp. 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. (2000) Pollution metaphors in the UK biotechnology controversy, Science as Culture, 9(3), pp. 325–351.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. and Boschert, K. (2011) Segregating GM crops: Why a contentious “risk” issue in Europe? Science as Culture, 20(2), pp. 255–279. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2011.563570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. and Priest, S. (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors, Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), pp. 704–718. doi: 10.1177/0963662508097625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L. and Zakharova, L. (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news, Public Understanding of Science, 16, 183–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. and Goidel, R. K. (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic survey research divide, Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), pp. 421–440. doi: 10.1177/0963662506065558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parales-Quenza, C. J. (2004) Preferences need no inferences, once again: Germinal elements in the public perceptions of genetically modified foods in Colombia, Public Understanding of Science, 13(2), pp. 131–153. doi: 10.1177/0963662504044109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public. Contact Research Report (Sudbury: HSE Books).
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects, Journal of Communication, 49(1), pp. 103–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuck, A. R. T. and de Vreese, C. H. (2006) Between risk and opportunity, European Journal of Communication, 21(1), pp. 5–32. doi: 10.1177/0267323106060987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, A. (2002) “It just goes against the grain.” Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK, Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), pp. 273–291. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shineha, R. and Kato, K. (2009) Public engagement in Japanese policy-making: A history of the genetically modified organisms debate, New Genetics and Society, 28(2), pp. 139–152. doi: 10.1080/14636770902901454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P. N. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice (London: Sage).
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, C. O., Dickerson, D. L. and Hotchkiss, R. (2009) Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research, Science Communication, 30(4), pp. 427–452. doi: 10.1177/1075547008326931
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuchman, G. (1978) Making news: A study in the construction of reality, (New York: Free Press).
   Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. (2007) A scheme for analyzing the results of focus groups, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(4), pp. 20–34. Available at http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/982 (accessed 27 February 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. (2010) Issues in the analysis of focus groups: Generalisability, quantifiability, treatment of context and quotations [electronic version], The Qualitative Report, 15, pp. 122–141. Available at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15–1/vicsek.pdf (accessed 24 February 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. (2011) Costs and benefits of stem cell research and treatment: Media presentation and audience understanding in Hungary, Science Communication, 33(3), pp. 309–340. doi: 10.1177/1075547010389820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. (2013) “Gene-fouled or gene-improved?”—media framing of GM crops and food in Hungary, New Genetics and Society, 32(1), pp. 54–77. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.705513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. and Gergely, J. (2011) Media presentation and public understanding of stem cells and stem cell research in Hungary, New Genetics and Society, 30(1), pp. 1–26. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2011.552297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicsek, L. and Gergely, J. (2012) GM növények helyzete Magyarországon [Situation of GM crops in Hungary]. Unpublished manuscript, Budapest.
   Google Scholar
• Vilella-Vila, M. and Costa-Font, J. (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food, Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), pp. 2095–2106. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W. and Kronberger, N. (2001) Killer tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with biotechnology, in: K. Deaux and G. Philogène (Eds) Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, pp. 147–164 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), pp. 323–343. doi: 10.1348/014466602760344241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar