On Tuesday, May 22, I will be delivering a lecture as part of the National Academies’ Sackler Colloquium on the “Science of Science Communication,” reviewing the role of the media in science policy debates. Below I have included a reading list specific to key subjects covered.
UPDATE: The video of the lecture along with those of my fellow panelists Dominique Brossard and William Eveland is now available online. I have also posted online the slides for download.
Overviews on Communication and Science Policy Debates Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96 (10), 1767-1778. (PDF).Nisbet, M.C. (2010). Civic Education About Climate Change: Opinion-Leaders, Communication Infrastructure, and Participatory Culture. Commissioned White Paper in support of the National Academies Roundtable on Climate Change Education. Washington. [PDF] Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge. [Google Books Excerpt]
Agenda-Setting and Framing Effects on News AudiencesNisbet, M.C. & Feldman, L. (2011). The Social Psychology of Political Communication. In D. Hook, B. Franks and M. Bauer (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [PDF]Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3 (2), 297-316. [Abstract].Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. [PDF]Scheufele, D.A. & Iyengar, S. (forthcoming). The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions. InThe Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. [PDF]
Agenda-Building, Frame-Building, and Journalistic DecisionsNisbet, M.C. (2008). Agenda-Building. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication. New York: Blackwell Publishing. [PDF]McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change. Communication Research, 26(1),30.Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,8(2), 36-70. [PDF]Nisbet, M., & Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. The media, the public, and agricultural biotechnology, 193–230. [PDF].Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1995. Science and the Media. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. G. Petersen and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. [Google Books excerpt]Fahy, J. & Nisbet, M.C. (2011). The Science Journalist Online: Shifting Roles and Emerging Practices. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism. [HTML].
Perceptions and Analysis of False Balance in Science CoverageEveland, W. P., Jr., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. [PDF]Besley, J. & Nisbet, M.C. (2011). How Scientists View the Media, the Public and the Political Process. Public Understanding of Science. [PDF].Boykoff, M. & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change Vol. 15: No. 2 : 125-136.[PDF]Boykoff, M. (2007). Flogging a Dead Norm? Media Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in United States and United Kingdom, 2003–2006. Area 39(4) [PDF].Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Death of a Norm? Evaluating False Balance in Media Coverage. Chapter 3 in Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. Washington, DC: American University (HTML).Feldman, L. et al. (2011). Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics. [HTML].
Elite Cues, Polarization, and Public PerceptionsAbramowitz, A. (2012). The Polarized Public? Why American Government Is So Dysfunctional. New York: Pearson. [Description]Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112. [PDF]Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & 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. [Abstract]Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Public Opinion and Political Participation. In D. Schlosberg, J. Dryzek, & R. Norgaard (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. London, UK: Oxford University Press. [HTML].Pew Center for People and the Press (2011, November). Partisan Divided Over Clean Energy Grows. [HTML]Scheufele, D.A & Nisbet, M.C. (in press). Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement. Communication Yearbook. [HTML]
Framing, Audience Segmentation, and Public Engagement on Climate ChangeNisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter to Public Engagement. Environment, 51 (2), 514-518. (HTML).Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Mertz, C. (2011). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PloS One, 6(3), e17571. [HTML]Maibach, E., Nisbet, M.C. et al. (2010). Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health Issue: An Exploratory Study of Public Reactions. BMC Public Health 10: 299 (HTML).
Reading Lists and Student Blog Posts from Relevant Courses at American University
Science Communication in Political Controversies
Science and Environmental Communication
Seminar on Advanced Media Theory