Discourses and Distortions: Dimensions of Global and National Science Communication

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Societies are evermore being referred to as ‘knowledge societies’ in which scientific information plays an important role. Forest science provides forest-related scientific knowledge which can be integrated into processes driving society. This knowledge is transmitted within the sphere of science as a mean of contributing to present scientific discussion, reducing the uncertainties of forest-related phenomenon. This knowledge must also be integrated into public discussions on complex topics such as climate change, biodiversity, and forest fires as these issues have relevance–or impacts- on the lives and living conditions of many people throughout the world. The diffusion –or communication- of this knowledge through any communication channel is here labeled the discourse on forest science. For the discourses on forest science and their communication to find legitimation in society, the characteristics of a deliberative discourse following Jürgen Habermas’s ‘Communicative Action’ are proposed as those that should be observed. There are, however, distortions –as explained by the existence of power structures following Michel Foucault’s concepts- that cause a shift from deliberative discourse to one where these power structures determine the outcomes of the communications. To examine whether the communication processes associated with forest science are influenced by these power structures or are in fact consequences of deliberative processes, two arenas are observed: the scientific and the public (approximated by the mass media) arena. Two are then the research objects that have been selected for the empirical analysis: for the scientific discourse, publications that appeared in scientific journals; for the public discourse on forest science, news articles appearing in newspapers and magazines. Two levels of analysis are called for: a global and a national one –through the case study of Chile-. Three forest science related issues have been chosen for their political as well as societal relevance: climate change, biodiversity, and forest fires. Through a quantitative-qualitative content analysis, publications on these three issues in five global and one national scientific journal, as well as in two global mass media sources and one national newspaper have been examined. The time frame of 1994-2003 has been chosen as it may reflect reactions in both arenas to the international political events that are relevant to forest science. Additionally, information of the attitudes towards the media of scientists working worldwide in the field of forestry have been gathered through a survey to further test the existence or absence of medialization of forest science -the orientation of science to the criteria of the media. Results regarding the global scientific discourse show that the communication of forest science is not characterized by a deliberative discourse, but more by an empowered one where Centers dominate the discussion of the scientific issues. Authors from countries whose native language is not English make it into the discourse but only in limited cases. In the issues analyzed, forest and natural scientists dominate the discussion in almost equal shares, leaving hardly any room for authors from other scientific disciplines. The discourse is mainly limited to the discussion of events taking place in single nations and in particular localities within it. In terms of the location of problems and events being discussed there can be no talk about the discourse being a global discourse; rather it is a national one. Collaboration may help to bring the communication process of forest science to a closer ideal of a deliberative discourse, including the interpretation patterns of those parties with interests that may be ignored. Results show that forest science is slowly following tendencies of science in general in which more and more countries are becoming part of the discourse. Results on the international collaborative efforts however show that there is no global interconnected community in the issues analyzed, but that collaborative efforts are mainly divided into Anglo-American and Northern-European research networks. Distortions in the communication processes of forest science can also be seen through the presence of the medialization of science, analyzed through different factors. The results show that for forest science, medialization is not present. This is further confirmed when considering the behavior and attitudes of individual scientists working worldwide in the field of forest science. The medialization-related surveyed factors show that scientists who participated do not recognize the influence –or benefits- of media in their research activities. Consequently there is no recognition of medialization by them.