Science communication for citizens: speeches in use

• Autor(a) principal: Santana, Elaine
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Cardoso, Ana Filipa, Bernardo, Joana, Silva, Sílvia, Santos, Diana, Ventura, Filipa, Loureiro, Ricardo, Apóstolo, João, Silva, Rosa
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.15.2022.e745
• topic: Comunicação de ciência; Literacia científica; Análise de conteúdo; Instituições científicas; Internet; Science communication; Scientific literacy; Content analysis; Scientific institutions; Internet

Currently, a high and diverse fraction of scientific knowledge is published. However, the publication of scientific results in the academic field and among peers does not guarantee that knowledge reaches society. Scientists have a duty to transform knowledge into products that are easy to consume, accessible to people, at a time when they need to make conscious and informed decisions, contributing to empowerment in aspects of their health and their lives. To analyze the lexicon used by international entities in their online structures to communicate science to lay citizens. Exploratory study, of a descriptive nature, using document analysis of content published on the websites of 16 international scientific institutions. The textual corpus was organized into 21 texts and submitted to analysis using the software Interface de R pour Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionneires (IRAMUTEQ). The corpus was organized into two contextual fields “Approaching the citizen” and “From public understanding of science to strategic communication”. Subsequently, the lexical worlds “Interaction”, “Involvement”, “Accessibility” and “Enabling” were categorized. The lexicon revealed in the speeches of the scientific institutions made it possible to identify the conceptual fields and the lexical worlds that characterize the three existing models of communication. In the scientific dissemination strategies revealed, there are elements of the transition and evolution of the models themselves over the years. The deficit model, strongly criticized in the literature, is represented by the less representative lexical world, demonstrating that it still has roots in current strategies, but constitutes a model that no longer responds sufficiently to the interests and needs of the current public. In contrast, the two subsequent models, although distant in CHD, AFC and similarity analyses, compete for similar goals, and more equitably address the democratic and interactive communication of science.