Communicating Popular Science: From Deficit to Democracy

by Sarah Perrault

Technoscientific developments often have far-reaching consequences, both negative and positive, for the public. Yet, because science has the authority to decide which judgments about scientific issues are sound, public concerns are often dismissed because they are not part of the technoscientific paradigm they question. This book addresses the role of science popularization in that paradox; it explains how science writing works and argues that it can do better at promoting public discussions about science-related issues. To support these arguments, it situates science popularization in its historical and cultural context; provides a conceptual framework for analyzing popular science texts; and examines the rhetorical effects of common strategies used in popular science writing. Twenty-six years after Dorothy Nelkin's groundbreaking book, Selling How the Press Covers Science and Technology, popular science writing is still not meeting its potential as a public interest genre; Communicating Popular Science explores how it can move closer to doing so.

Genres: Academic

222 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Ransom Mowris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perrault will change how you think about science writing. In Communicating Popular Science she examines the rhetorical stances writers take when conveying science & technology (S&T) to the public. These stances define how work is received, and forms a framework for the public's relationship with science. She proposes three perspectives (these are not mutually exclusive..they exist on a continuum and an effective piece might use all 3 stances):

Public Appreciation of Science & Tech - PAST. In this model, writers serve as "boosters" who faithfully extol the wonders of science. In this model, the public isn't supposed to "get" S&T, they're just supposed to be thankful for it. They're definitely not supposed to question it. Perrault warns readers about the dangers of this model -- America's rabid enthusiasm for atomic technology in the 1950s is a good example of misplaced appreciation (we used irradiated toothpaste, for christ's sake!)

Public Engagement of Science & Tech - PEST. In this model, writer "translate" science into a form the public can understand and fit into their lives. S&T marketing fit under this category. It's better than PAST, according to Perrault, but still falls short.

Critical Understanding of Science in the Public - CUSP. Writers following this model seek to enable the public to make their own decisions about S&T. They seek to present the benefits and dangers of S&T, and do not tint it with rose-colored glasses like PAST model writer. Skepticism is encouraged. Perrault argues that, since taxpayers pay for research and development, the public should have a say in S&T.

Perrault develops these ideas in-depth, providing detailed analyses of example pieces and an immense amount of advice and considerations for S&T writers. Her writing can get a little preachy at times, but I never took issue with it. She's right and she knows it.

Given our society's dependence on S&T, these perspectives are becoming increasingly relevant. To make educated decisions on science-dependent issues like global warming, automation, and healthcare, the public needs to be better equipped. Perrault ends her book with a chapter titled "Ending the Society-Science Duality." What a lofty title. But she's completely right. The concept of science as some magic, expensive process where brilliant men in white lab coats find capital-T Truth couldn't be more outdated. Science is a social issue, and Perrault will teach you how to present it that way.

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

easy, light read

[Jeremy]

Perrault's short chapters and accessible style align nicely with her goals to conduct a discussion of rhetorical theory and popular science works useful to an advanced undergraduate or graduate seminar. But Communicating Popular Science is also a solid contribution, on its own terms, to the rhetoric of science subfield.