IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v115y2018p2620-2627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen Hall Jamieson

    (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104)

Abstract

After documenting the existence and exploring some implications of three alternative news narratives about science and its challenges, this essay outlines ways in which those who communicate science can more accurately convey its investigatory process, self-correcting norms, and remedial actions, without in the process legitimizing an unwarranted “science is broken/in crisis” narrative. The three storylines are: ( i ) quest discovery, which features scientists producing knowledge through an honorable journey; ( ii ) counterfeit quest discovery, which centers on an individual or group of scientists producing a spurious finding through a dishonorable one; and ( iii ) a systemic problem structure, which suggests that some of the practices that protect science are broken, or worse, that science is no longer self-correcting or in crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 2018. "Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(11), pages 2620-2627, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:2620-2627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2620.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lyons, Benjamin A. & Merola, Vittorio & Reifler, Jason, 2020. "Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    2. Derek J. Koehler & Gordon Pennycook, 2019. "How the public, and scientists, perceive advancement of knowledge from conflicting study results," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 671-682, November.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:671-682 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:2620-2627. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.