The editors at The Scientist have made our October cover story on framing freely available for the month of October. Make sure you check out our 4,000 word feature, the common set of frames that apply across science debates, the sidebar emphasizing eight key recommendations for moving forward, editor Richard Gallagher's views on framing, the reader poll, and the ongoing discussion forum hosted by The Scientist (at the end of the feature).
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Appearing as the cover story for the October issue of The Scientist, I've teamed up with my colleague Dietram Scheufele to pen a 4,000 word feature that expands on the Framing Science thesis previously introduced in short articles at Science and the Washington Post.
There's a great deal of context…
Listen up, y'all: Nisbet has just teamed up with Dietram Scheufele, a colleague from UW-Madison, to pen a lengthy cover story for The Scientist that fleshes out the now uncontroversial framing science argument. Furthermore, Scientist editor Richard Gallagher strongly endorses the argument in his…
In my last post, I mentioned Richard Gallagher's piece in The Scientist, Fairness for Fraudsters, wherein Gallagher argues that online archived publications ought to be scrubbed of the names of scientists sanctioned by the ORI for misconduct so that they don't keep paying after they have served…
Slides and synchronized video of the presentations from the AGU panel "Re-Starting the Conversation on Climate Change: The Media, Dialogue, and Public Engagement Workshop" are now online. Below I link to each of the presentations highlighting key themes or conclusions and the minute mark in the…
Good stuff, thanks for the scientific focus on how to communicate science.
It's interesting that professional scientists are eager to be "experts" on communication without much experience or without data and analysis informing their conclusions.
Congrats there.
It's a powerful article that probably should be read by many more than it will.