Ciencia y sociedad: nuevas interacciones en el universo digitalHacia una nueva disciplina académica para su estudio

  1. Lourdes López Pérez
  2. María Dolores Olvera Lobo
Revista:
Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología

ISSN: 1139-3327

Año de publicación: 2018

Número: 21

Páginas: 93-107

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12795/ARGUMENTOS/2017.I21.05 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología

Resumen

La relación entre ciencia y sociedad ha cambiado radicalmente en los últimos 30 años desde el denominado modelo de déficit cognitivo (centrado en la falta de cultura científica de los ciudadanos) hasta la participación del público en la ciencia. Una transformación impulsada por la irrupción de Internet que, no sólo ha favorecido un papel más activo de la sociedad en el desarrollo científico, sino que también ha generado un nuevo escenario de estudio centrado en el análisis de la democratización del proceso científico al amparo del universo digital y su impacto social y cultural. Aunque aún es incipiente, ya existe una corriente académica que ha puesto el foco de atención en este nuevo campo de investigación humanística. Estos autores apuntan, entre sus conclusiones, que el acceso abierto y la participación pública que posibilitan las herramientas de la Web 2.0 apoyan la socialización del proceso científico y contribuyen al desarrollo de una investigación e innovación responsable. En el presente trabajo se reivindica la importancia de desarrollar un marco teórico desde las ciencias sociales y humanidades digitales que permita analizar tanto el papel de Internet en el impulso de la RRI, como la calidad, efectividad y características de las interacciones digitales entre ciencia y sociedad.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ALIX, J. ET AL. (2008). Public Engagement in Science across the European research Area. En: Report of the science in society session. Brussels: Public Engagement in Science European Communities, (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/20800)
  • ÁRNASON, V. (2012). “Scientific Citizenship in a Democratic Society”. Public Understanding of Science 22 (8): pp. 927-940 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512449598)
  • BARON, N. (2010). “Escape from the ivory tower”. Washington: Island Press ISBN: 9781597266635
  • BATTS, S., ANTHIS, N. Y SMITH, T. (2008). “Advancing Science through Conversations: Bridging the Gap between Blogs and the Academy”. PLoS Biology (6) 9 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240)
  • BYRNE, P. ET AL (2002). “Increasing public understanding of transgenic crops through the World Wide Web”. Public Understanding of Science 11(3) pp. 293-304 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/306) http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/20800
  • BODMER, W. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society. Recuperado de: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publicat ions/1985/10700.pdf
  • BONNEY, R. ET AL (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A caisi inquiry group report. Washington DC.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
  • BROSSARD, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. PNAS 10 (3) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110
  • BROWN D. (2016). Access to scientific research. Challenges facing communications in STM. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • BUCCHI, M. AND NERESINI, F. (2008). “Science and Public Participation”. En: The handbook of science and technology studies. Ed. by Felt, U.; Fouché, R.; Miller, C and Smith-Doerr, L. (pp. 449–472). MIT-press ISBN: 9780262035682
  • BURNS, T., O’CONNER, D. Y STOCKLMAYER, S. (2003). “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition”. Public Understanding of Science 12 (2): pp. 183–202 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004)
  • COLSON, V. (2011). “Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news”. Journalism (12) 7 pp. 849-889 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412834)
  • DAVIES, S. (2011). “The Rules of Engagement: Power and Interaction in Dialogue Events”. Public Understanding of Science 22 (65) (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662511399685)
  • DELBORNE, J. ET AL (2011). “Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences”. Public Understanding of Science 20(3) pp. 367-384 (DOI: HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1177/0963662509347138)
  • DIERKENS, M. Y VON GROTE, C. (2003). Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
  • EBERSOL, S. (2000). “Uses and Gratifications of the Web among Students”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (6)1 pp. 161-182 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00111.x)
  • EVELAND, W. Y DUNWOODY, S. (1998). “Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public”. Public Understanding of Science 7 (4) pp. 285-311 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/0963- 6625/7/4/003) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110
  • FELT, U. (2003). “Why Should the Public ‘Understand’ Science? A Historical Perspective on Aspects of the Public Understanding of Science”. En Dierkens, M. and Von Grote, C. Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
  • FUNDACIÓN ESPAÑOLA PARA LA CIENCIA Y LA TECNOLOGÍA (2017). VIII Encuesta de Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología 2016. https://www.fecyt.es/es/noticia/crece-el-interes-de-las-mujeres-por-laciencia-y-la-tecnologia
  • GRAND A ET AL. (2016). “We muddle our way through: shared and distributed expertise in digital engagement with research”. Journal Science Communication: 15(4). Recuperado de: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/04/JCOM_1504_2016_A05
  • HAGENDIJK, R. E IRWIN, A. (2006). “Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe”. Minerva, 2006; 44: pp.: 167-184 8DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl1024-006-0012-x)
  • HANSSEN ET AL. (2003). Wetenschapsvoorlichting profetie of professie:een confrontatie tussen communicatietheorie en voorlichtingspraktijk. Amsterdam: Report Stiching WeTeN.
  • IRWIN, A., JENSEN, T. Y JONES, K. (2012). “The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice”. Social Studies of Science 43 (1): pp.:118-135 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312712462461)
  • JACKSON, R., BARBAGALLO, F. Y HASTE, H. (2005). “Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (3): pp. 349–358 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230500187227)
  • JENSEN ET AL (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and public policy (7) 35 pp. 527-541
  • KLÜVER, L. ET AL (2014). Public Engagement in R&I processes. Promises and demands. Engaging Society in Horizon 2020. Disponible en: http://engage2020.eu/media/Engage2020-Policy-Brief-Issue2_final.pdf
  • KOELSCHE, C. (1965). “Scientific literacy as Related to the Media of Mass Communication”. School Science and Mathematics 65 (8): pp.719-725 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1965.tb13564.x)
  • KOUPER, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication (69) 1
  • KWOK, L., & YU, B. (2013). Spreading social media messages on Facebook: An analysis of the restaurant industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84-94.
  • LAPOINTE, P. Y DROUIN, J. (2007). Science on Blogue. Quebec: Multimundes.
  • LEDERBOGEN, U. Y TREBBE, J. (2003). “Promoting Science on the Web. Public Relations for Scientific Organizations. Results of a Content Analysis”. Science Communication (24) 3 pp. 333-352 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547002250299
  • LEE, N., Y VANDYKE, M. S. (2015). “Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science”. Science Communication, 37(4), 533-541.
  • LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. Y OLVERA-LOBO M. (201 a). “Comunicación de la ciencia 2.0 en España: El papel de los centros p blicos de investigación y de medios digitales”. , 6(2). (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM2015.6.2.08)
  • LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. Y OLVERA-LOBO, M. (2015 b). “De la alfabetización científica a la comunicación p blica de la ciencia en Espa a”. En: López-Ornelas, M. y Mateos, C. La comunicación científica, una perspectiva universitaria. Tenerife: Sociedad Latina de Comunicación Social, 2015b ISBN: 13:978-84-16458-24-0 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4185/cac93.
  • LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. Y OLVERA-LOBO MD (2016 a). “Social media as channels for the public communication of science. The case of Spanish research centers and public universities”. En: Knautz, Kathrin; Baran, Katsiaryna S. (eds.). Facets of Facebook. Users and use. De Gruyter House. ISBN: 978 3 11 041816 3
  • LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. Y OLVERA-LOBO, M. (2016 b). “La Web 2.0 para la Comunicación pública de la ciencia. El caso de los centros de investigación y universidades p blicas espa olas”. 25 (3): pp: 441-448 eISSN: 1699-2407
  • MAHRT, M. Y PUSCHMANN, C. (2013). Science blogging: an exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of science Communication (13) 3 pp. 1-16
  • MICHAEL, M. (2002). “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science”. Science, Technology & Human Values 27 (3) pp.357-78 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700302)
  • MILLER, J. (1983). “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review”. Daedalus 112(2): pp. 29–48. Recuperado de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024852 (18-07-2014)
  • NATIONAL CO-ORDINATING CENTRE FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT (2010). What is Public Engagement. Recuperado de: https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/explore-it/what-publicengagement (13-06-2014)
  • OLVERA-LOBO, M. Y LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. (2013). “The role of public universities and the primary digital national newspapers in the dissemination of Spanish science through the Internet and Web 2.0”. En: T M ‘13 Procs of the First intl conf on technological ecosystem for enhancing multiculturality. New York: ACM pp. 191-196. ISBN: 978 1 4503 2345 1 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2536536.2536565)
  • OLVERA-LOBO, M. Y LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. (2014 a). “Science communication 2.0: The situation of Spain through its public universities and the most widely-circulated online newspapers”. Information resources management journal 27(3), pp. 42-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2014070104
  • OLVERA-LOBO, M. Y LÓPEZ PÉREZ, L. (201 b). “Relación ciencia-sociedad: evolución terminológica”. En: Gonzálvez-Vallés, Juan-Enrique (coord.). 3 Madrid: McGraw Hill. ISBN: 978 84 4819 746 9
  • OWEN, R., MACNAGHTEN, P. AND STILGOE, J. (2012). “Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society”. Science and Public Policy 39 (6) pp: 751–760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
  • PARDO, R. Y CALVO, F. (2002). “Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis”. Public Understanding Science, 2002; 11(2): pp. 155-195 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963- 6625/11/2/305)
  • PITRELLI, N. (2017). “Big Data and digital methods in science communication research: opportunities, challenges and limits”. Journal of Science Communication 16 (02). Recuperado de: https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/16/02/JCOM_1602_2017_C01
  • RARN, T., MEJLGAARD, N. Y RASK, M. (2014). Public Engagement Innovation for Horizon 2020. Inventory of PE mechanisims and initiatives. Disponible en: www.PE2020.eu
  • RASK, M. ET AL (2016). Innovative Public Engagement. A conceptual model of public engagement in Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation European Union´s Seventh Framework. Programme for research, technological development and demonstration. Disponible en: https://pe2020.eu/2016/05/26/innovativepublic-engagement-a-conceptual-model-of-pe/
  • ROGERS, R. Y MARRES, N. (2000). “Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web”. Public Understanding of Science 9(2) pp. [141-163] (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/304)
  • ROWE, G. Y FREWER, L. (2005). “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms”. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30 (2): pp. 251–90. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724)
  • ROYAL SOCIETY (2000). Science and Technology: Third Report. Recuperado de: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38 /3801.htm (10-06-2014)
  • SAFFER, A., SOMMERFELDT, E. AND TAYLOR, M. (2013). “The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization-public relationships”. Public Relations Review 36 (4), pp. 336-341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005
  • SCHEUFELE, D. A. (2014). “Science communication as political communication”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13585-13592.
  • SHEN, B. (1975). “Scientific Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science”. Communication of Scientific Information, 63(3): pp. 44-52
  • SHIRKY, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin Press ISBN: 1594202532
  • SHUAI, X., PEPE, A. Y BOLEN, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citation. PLoS ONE (7) 11 e47523 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523)
  • STILGOE, J., LOCK, S. Y WILSDON, J. (2014). “Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?” Public Understanding of Science 23(1): pp. 4-15 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154)
  • SU, AKIN Y BROSSARD (2017). “Information-sharing and Community-Building: Exploring the Use of Twitter in Science Public Relations”. Science Communication 39(5) pp. 569-597 DOI: 10.1177/1075547017734226
  • THOMAS, F. Y KINDO A. (1978). Towards Scientific Literacy. Tehran: International Institute for Adult Literacy Methods and Hulton Educational Publications.
  • TRENCH, B. (2008). HandBook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. USA: Routledge ISBN-13: 978-0415386173
  • TRIUNFOL, M. (2004). “Dynamics of list-server discussion on genetically modified foods”. Public Understanding of Science 13(2) pp. 155-175 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044110)
  • VAN DIJCK, J. (2003). “After the ''Two Cultures'': Toward a ''(Multi)cultural'' Practice of Science Communication”. Science Communication 25(2): pp. 177-190 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259540)
  • WEILGOD, M. Y TREISE, D. (2004). “Attracting teen surfers to science web sites”. Public understanding science 13(3) pp. 229-248 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045504
  • WHITEY S. (1959). “Public Opinion about science and scientists”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959 23(3): pp. 382-388 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266890)
  • WILKINS, J. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution (23) 8 pp. 411-413 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.004
  • WINTER, E. (2004). “Public Communication of Science and Technology: German and European Perspectives”. Science Communication 25(3) pp. 288-293 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003262665)
  • YANG, S., KANG M., AND JOHNSON, P. (2010). “Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication through organizational blogs”. Communication research 37 (4) pp.: 473-497 DOI: 10.1177/0093650210362682
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet