Päeva juhatas Arko Olesk, ajakirja Tarkade Klubi peatoimetaja

Lisainformatsioon: Elis Vengerfeldt (e-post: elis.vengerfeldt@err.ee, telefon: 5213083).

Ettekannete tutvustused:

"From deficit to dialogue, from dialogue to participation - what next?",
Massimiano Bucchi



During the last decade, enduring public concern over certain science and technology issues despite significant communication efforts, growing citizen demand for involvement in such issues, multiplying examples of non experts actively contributing to shape the agenda of research in fields like biomedicine have led to rethinking the very meaning of public communication of science in several arenas. In many countries and at the European level, funding schemes and policy documents shifted their keywords from “public awareness of science” to “citizen engagement,” from “communication” to “dialogue,” from “science and society” to “science in society.”Does the change of keywords actually reflect a change in the practice and understanding of science communication? Or it is – as some scholars have suggested - in many cases a reappearance of the traditional, deficit model in a new guise? How are these changes redefining, if ever, the role of science communication? Which theoretical model(s) can best help us interpret this changing scenario?

During the last decade, enduring public concern over certain science and technology issues despite significant communication efforts, growing citizen demand for involvement in such issues, multiplying examples of non experts actively contributing to shape the agenda of research in fields like biomedicine have led to rethinking the very meaning of public communication of science in several arenas. In many countries and at the European level, funding schemes and policy documents shifted their keywords from “public awareness of science” to “citizen engagement,” from “communication” to “dialogue,” from “science society” to “science society.”Does the change of keywords actually reflect a change in the practice and understanding of science communication? Or it is – as some scholars have suggested - in many cases a reappearance of the traditional, deficit model in a new guise? How are these changes redefining, if ever, the role of science communication? Which theoretical model(s) can best help us interpret this changing scenario?During the last decade, enduring public concern over certain science and technology issues despite significant communication efforts, growing citizen demand for involvement in such issues, multiplying examples of non experts actively contributing to shape the agenda of research in fields like biomedicine have led to rethinking the very meaning of public communication of science in several arenas. In many countries and at the European level, funding schemes and policy documents shifted their keywords from “public awareness of science” to “citizen engagement,” from “communication” to “dialogue,” from “science society” to “science society.”Does the change of keywords actually reflect a change in the practice and understanding of science communication? Or it is – as some scholars have suggested - in many cases a reappearance of the traditional, deficit model in a new guise? How are these changes redefining, if ever, the role of science communication? Which theoretical model(s) can best help us interpret this changing scenario?

"Teadlased, avalikkus ja riskid  – kuidas saavutada dialoog?",
"Scientits, lay public and risks of modern society – divided worlds, shared concerns?",
Triin Vihalemm



Riskide kommunikatsioonil laiale avalikkusele on üheks suuremaks probleemiks ekspertide/teadlaste teadmuse “tõlkimine” laiale avalikkusele. Erinevad uurimused möönavad, et ekspertide ja nö tavakodanike riskitaju on täiesti erinev ning see takistab  kommunikatsiooni, muutes selle valdavalt ühepoolseks. Püütakse küll leida kuldset keskteed protektsionistliku, klubilise riskijuhtimise mudeli ning  huvigruppide avaliku võitluse mudeli vahel, kuid praktikas on see küllalt keeruline saavutada. Ettekanne käsitleb ülaltoodud probleeme Eesti kontekstis, kasutades esinduslikke küsitlusandmeid erinevat tüüpi riskide teadvustamise kohta Eesti elanike seas, teadlaste usaldamist võrreldes riigi- ja meediainstitutsioonidega ning kriisi/riskiinfo  vastuvõtustrateegiad. Meedia ja teadlased on kõrge legitiimsusega infoallikad, kuid nendepoolsed sõnumid liiga “universaalsed”.  Sõnumite kontekstualiseerimist ja elanike usku oma teovõimesse kriitilises olukorras mõjutavad olulisel määral koolist ja massimeediast pärit taustateadmised.  Sellest, kuidas massimeedia üldiselt käsitleb teadusteemasid ja teaduslikku teadmist, võib olulisel määral sõltuda elanike heaolu konkreetsetes kriisiolukordades.

Riskide kommunikatsioonil laiale avalikkusele on üheks suuremaks probleemiks ekspertide/teadlaste teadmuse “tõlkimine” laiale avalikkusele. Erinevad uurimused möönavad, et ekspertide ja nö tavakodanike riskitaju on täiesti erinev ning see takistab  kommunikatsiooni, muutes selle valdavalt ühepoolseks. Püütakse küll leida kuldset keskteed protektsionistliku, klubilise riskijuhtimise mudeli ning  huvigruppide avaliku võitluse mudeli vahel, kuid praktikas on see küllalt keeruline saavutada. Ettekanne käsitleb ülaltoodud probleeme Eesti kontekstis, kasutades esinduslikke küsitlusandmeid erinevat tüüpi riskide teadvustamise kohta Eesti elanike seas, teadlaste usaldamist võrreldes riigi- ja meediainstitutsioonidega ning kriisi/riskiinfo  vastuvõtustrateegiad. Meedia ja teadlased on kõrge legitiimsusega infoallikad, kuid nendepoolsed sõnumid liiga “universaalsed”.  Sõnumite kontekstualiseerimist ja elanike usku oma teovõimesse kriitilises olukorras mõjutavad olulisel määral koolist ja massimeediast pärit taustateadmised.  Sellest, kuidas massimeedia üldiselt käsitleb teadusteemasid ja teaduslikku teadmist, võib olulisel määral sõltuda elanike heaolu konkreetsetes kriisiolukordades.

"Sõna jõud ja tähendus: teaduskommunikatsiooni tekstikeskne kriitiline analüüs",
Kaja Tampere



Kommunikatsioon loob tähendusi. Selleks aga peab sõnumi saatja ja vastuvõtja vahel valitsema üksteisemõistmine, mille üheks eelduseks on sarnase teadmusvälja olemasolu. Spetsiifilistel tugeva identiteediga valdkondadel on oma "keel" ja "sõnavara", mis inimesele  mujalt valdkondadest võib osutuda raskesti mõistetavaks. Igapäevaelus on sellisteks näiteks meditsiin, energeetika, samuti telekommunikatsioon jne. Sama probleem on ka teaduses - näiteks sotsioloogide keel ja kõne on arusaamatu mehhaanikutele, kuigi mõned teoreetilised kontseptsioonid võivad isegi olla kattuvad. Või näiteks erinevused loodusteadlaste ja filoloogide vahel, kunstiteadlaste ja füüsikute vahel jne. Lisaks on probleemne spetsiifilisemate teadusvaldkondade saavutuste esitamine laiale avalikule auditooriumile, kuna tegemist võib olla niivõrd spetsiifiliste käsitlustega ning samuti võib taoline populariseerimine takerduda ka teadlaste verbaalsetele eneseväljenduslikele oskustele. Sestap on oluline sarnaste tähendusväljade loomine, mis sisaldaks üheselt arusaadavaid käsitlusi, mõisteid ja termineid ühelt poolt ja teiselt poolt oskust ennast väljendada lihtsalt.

"When Science makes headline news: media logic vs science logic?",
Massimiano Bucchi



How do media cover science? The seminar will provide an overview of long term trends in science coverage and examples of recent issues related to science making headline news and introducing to recently available tools for studying science coverage by the media. The seminar will also, at least to some extent, challenge that standard view which identifies an irreducible opposition between media – and in particular, news – logic and science logic, highlighting the difficulties and shortcomings of media coverage of science.

How do media cover science? The seminar will provide an overview of long term trends in science coverage and examples of recent issues related to science making headline news and introducing to recently available tools for studying science coverage by the media. The seminar will also, at least to some extent, challenge that standard view which identifies an irreducible opposition between media – and in particular, news – logic and science logic, highlighting the difficulties and shortcomings of media coverage of science.

Massimiano Bucchi (Ph.D. Social and Political Science, European University Institute, 1997) is Associate Professor of Sociology of Science and Communication, Science and Technology at the University of Trento, Italy.

He has published several books, including Science and the media (London and New York, Routledge, 1998), Science in society. An Introduction to Social Studies of Science(London and New York, Routledge, 2004), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (with B. Trench, London and New York, Routledge, 2008), Beyond Technocracy. Citizens, Politics, Technoscience (New York, Springer, 2009) and essays in international journals such as History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Nature, New Genetics and Society, Science and Public Understanding of Science.

He has served as advisor and evaluator for several research and policy bodies, including the US National Science Foundation, the Royal Society, the European Commission and the European Food Safety Auhority.

He has carried out research and given seminars at several international institutions, such as the Royal Society, London School of Economics, University of California Berkeley, Royal Academy of Sciences Sweden, Science University Tokyo, Rikken Institute, American Association for the Advancement of Science and received several recognitions for his work, including the Mullins Prize awarded by the Society for Social Studies of Science (1997) and the Merck-Serono special jury award for science books (2007).

He is a member of the editorial board of the journal Public Understanding of Science and chairs the international committee organizing the 2012 World Conference on Public Communication of Science in Technology in Florence.

He regularly contributes to leading Italian newspapers Repubblica, La Stampa-TuttoScienze e Nòva-Il Sole 24 Ore.

www.soc.unitn.it/sus/mb.htm

"Sündmus teaduses, sündmus meedias",
Indrek Treufeldt, Eesti Rahvusringhääling




Seminari toetab ESF-i teaduse populariseerimise programm TeaMe.