Abstract
This chapter is in three parts. The first discusses the level of achievement in structuring the science communications research field in Canada and elsewhere. The second examines the historical development of the research. We recall the role of the state, underscoring the influence of the OECD in formulating national policies. In the third part, we describe the major orientations of the research by distinguishing two phases: an initial one, in which the work devolved mostly from government concerns or was conducted directly at the behest of various ministries; and a maturation characterized by the development of university research. The chapter concludes with the observation that research still remains underdeveloped in Canada, although it has diversified and grown significantly in recent years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The acronym PUS (public understanding of science) is also frequently used in Anglo-Saxon countries to denote the actions of dissemination (that is, the results thereof).
- 2.
The cultural sector, to take an example outside science communications, participates like others in this movement. See Schiele (in press).
- 3.
Let us recall that a ‘theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena’ (Kerlinger 1973:9).
- 4.
One exception is the University College of Saint Boniface in Manitoba.
- 5.
The two official languages of Canada (population 34.5 million) are English and French, the English-speakers totalling 66.3% and the French speakers 21.4%. Visible minorities amount to 16.2% of the Canadian population, South Asian and Chinese being the most important (4% and 3.7% of the total population, respectively). Furthermore, 19% of the Canadian population speaks neither English nor French as their mother tongue. The province of Quebec is a major exception: French speakers make up 81.8%, compared to 10.6% for English speakers and 7.6% for those who speak neither as a mother tongue. The province with the second highest number of French speakers is New Brunswick (29.7%); in no other province do French speakers account for more than 2.5%. Yet, the English and French peoples were not the original settlers of Canada: aboriginals amount to 3.75% of the total population.
- 6.
In 1963, Hugh MacLennan published Two solitudes, a novel in which he presented the complex relationships between English Canadians and French Canadians. The novel became a symbol of the Canadian reality: two cultures that prosper side by side, but most of the time superbly ignore each other.
- 7.
For an idea of this diversity, and the context in which it is possible, even if the data is becoming outdated, see Lewenstein (1994).
- 8.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Canada was made up of only two British provinces created by the Constitutional Act of 1791: Upper Canada, part of what is today Ontario, and Lower Canada, which included the south and east of Québec and what is now Labrador.
- 9.
David Suzuki is an exception, as he held a position as genetics professor at the University of British Columbia until his retirement in 2001. Carl Sagan in the United States, to name him only, shared the same profile.
- 10.
We will not deal here with questions of innovation, industrial development or education in the schools.
- 11.
We are indebted to Richard Pitre (1996) for this analysis of the role of the OECD.
- 12.
- 13.
Einsiedel’s survey was mixed: it was at once funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as part of research in several areas, and by Industry, Science and Technology, a Canadian government department.
- 14.
We should recall that the valorization of science culture also translates into a reform of science teaching. We may recall that the studies by Orpwood and Souque (1984) and by Olson and Russel (1984) led to a reform of science teaching programs, especially in Ontario. This question frequently returns in the forefront of debates in Canada, but without this necessarily being the case in Québec (Godin 1993b:314). However, a reform of science teaching had begun during the Quiet Revolution. Unfortunately, it didn’t yield the expected results (Désautels 1980). That said, and while much research on science teaching broaches questions akin to SCR, lack of space prevents us elaborating further here.
- 15.
A fact to note: according to this study, francophone citizens of Québec were, after those of Saskatchewan, the least likely to read a newspaper daily, and they read them much less than Québec anglophones.
- 16.
Québec Science, nos. 12, 17 and 25, 1974.
- 17.
The rarely discussed conceptual model that nourishes most of this work on the media is the so-called ‘classic’ communication model. This linear model, proposed by Lasswell (1948) to describe the structure and function of communication in society, describes a flow of information from source to receptor by means of messages. The Lasswell formula describing this flow remains famous: Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect. Also sometimes called S-R (stimulus–response), this formula was enriched by the notion of ‘retroaction’ (Westley and MacLean 1957) from one source of information to another. There is, one might say, collusion between the recourse to the ‘deficit model’, which assumes a flow of information from those who know towards those who do not know, and the Lasswellian diagram of communication, which poses an action from the source to the receptor. And this without examining the conditions and modalities of the appropriation of messages, how the public uses them, the conditions of production of the messages, or even the very idea of the form and content of the messages. The debate usually proceeds towards the relationships between the journalists and the scientists (Nelkin 1995; Maillé et al. 2010), or the traditional relationship of accuracy and truth of the information (Bell 1994). The idea is that the quality of the information guarantees that of the reception. These efforts are not devoid of interest (far from it). However, even if the questioning has evolved through the years, going from the idea of ‘science literacy’ (from the 1960s onwards, focused on knowledge) to that of ‘public understanding’ (after 1985, focused on attitudes and education), to arrive today at the more complex relationship of ‘science and society’ (the 1990s to the present) (Bauer et al. 2007:80), the perspective in which the work on media was conducted perpetuates in the SCR field a conception of the role of media that no longer has currency in studies on communication. It is the conception inherent to communication that marks the boundaries of reflection in SCR. Moreover, the realist approach—in the limited sense of amassing facts and items noted by Bachelard (1966:5)—generally adopted rubs out as the social and political factors that influence the discourses and practices of the media. It impels a necessary decentralizing to envisage other models. The hesitant attempts to propose other perspectives, such as work on social representations (Farr 1993; Locke 2005; Wagner 2007; Goodwin et al. 2011), have not yet received the attention they deserve.
- 18.
Just as for science journalism, research in this area is greatly autonomized, to the point of forming a totally separate field of research. However, a fair amount of this work is akin to SCR, dealing as it does with the same questions and examining the same issues, so it is worth approaching SCR work in this perspective.
- 19.
Tela Botanica is a French project, but the research is carried out by Canadian researchers.
- 20.
Included are ‘citizen involvement, stakeholder engagement, participatory technology assessment, indigenous people’s rights, local community consultation, NGO intervention, multi-stakeholder dialog, access to information, access to justice’ (Einsiedel 2008:173).
- 21.
Including the campus of the University of Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, Québec), which now has a location in the Montreal region.
References
Albert, M., Marchal, C., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2002). Enquête sur la culture scientifique et technique des Québécois et Québécoise. Sainte-Foy: Conseil de la science et de la technologie.
Amyot, M. (1994). Bilan des actions québécoises en culture scientifique et technique. In B. Schiele (Ed.), Quand la science se fait culture, Communications, Actes II. Saint-Foy: Editions MultiMondes, Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal. (Edition électronique.)
Bachelard, G. (1966). Le rationalisme appliqué. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Banchet, J., & Schiele, B. (2003). Comparaison de quelques enquêtes nationals et internationals sur la compréhension et la perception de la science par le public. In B. Schiele & R. Jantzen (Eds.), Les territories de la culture scientifique (pp. 95–114). Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Bauer, W. M. (1998). ‘La longue durée’ of popular science, 1830 – present. In D. Devèze-Berthet (Ed.), La promotion de la culture scientifique et technique: ses acteurs et leurs logiques (pp. 75–92). Paris: Université Paris 7—Denis Diderot.
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.
Bauer, W. M., Shukla, R., & Allum, N. (2011). Towards cultural indicators of science with global validity. In W. M. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the world (pp. 1–17). New York/London: Routledge.
Béguet, B. (1994). La vulgarisation scientifique au XIXe siècle. In B. Béguet, M. Cantor, & S. Le Men (Eds.), La science pour tous (pp. 5–48). Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux.
Bell, A. (1994). Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 3(3), 259–275.
Bell, A. R. (2010). Notes from some spaces in-between. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3)C02.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Bickford, J., Mather, C., & Fleising, U. (2005). Time and the structuring of ritual performance in the xenotransplantation debate. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 235–247.
Blue, G. (2010). Food, publics, science. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 147–154.
Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
Borchelt, R. & Carollo, B. (2011). Science communication literature review and analysis: Preliminary research report, 5–9 December. Office of Public Affairs and Communication, United States National Cancer Institute.
Boucher, L., Dupuis, D. & Schiele, B. (1985). La nouvelle scientifique dans la presse québécoise. Département des communications, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’agir Editions.
Boyer, L., Roth, W.-M., & Wright, N. (2009). The emergence of a community mapping network: Coastal eelgrass mapping in British Columbia. Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 130–148.
Breton, P. (1997). L’utopie de la communication. Paris: La Découverte.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). London/New York: Routledge.
Bush, V. (1945). Science the endless frontier: A report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. Washington, DC.
Canada (1962–1963). The Royal Commission on government organization—dite Commission Glassco du nom de son président. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
Canada (1970). A science policy for Canada: Report of the Senate Special Committee—dit comité Lamontagne du nom de son président, vol. 1, Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
Canada (1972). A science policy for Canada: Report of the Senate Special Committee (Vol. 2). Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
Canada (1973). A science policy for Canada: Report of the Senate Special Committee (Vol. 3). Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
Carle, P., & Guédon, J.-C. (1988). Vulgarisation et développement des sciences et des techniques: Le cas du Québec (1950–1950). In D. Jacobi & B. Schiele (Eds.), Vulgariser la science (pp. 192–219). Seyssel: Champ Vallon.
Carpentier, J.-M., & Ouellet, D. (1994). Fernand Seguin, le savant imaginaire. Montréal: Libre Expression.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.
Chartrand, L., Duchesne, R., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Histoire des sciences au Québec. Montréal: Boréal.
Colin, F. (1990). Les revues de vulgarisation. In B. Béguet (Ed.), La science pour tous—1850–1914 (pp. 71–91). Paris: Bibliothèque du Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers.
Decima (1988). Report to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology on public attitudes toward science and technology. Unpublished report, Toronto.
Désautels, J. (1980). Ecole + science = échec. Québec: Québec Science Editeur.
Dubas, O. & Martel, L. (1975). Sciences et media (Vol. 2). Ministère d’Etat, Sciences et Technologie, Ottawa: Information Canada.
Duchesne, R. (1978). La science et le pouvoir au Québec. Québec: Editeur officiel du Québec.
Duchesne, R. (1981). L’Etat et la culture scientifique des Québécois. Les Cahiers du Socialisme, 8, 107–138.
Durant, J. R., Geoffrey, A. E., & Geoffrey, P. T. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(3628), 11–14.
Eidelman, J. (1988). La création du Palais de la Découverte : Professionnalisation de la recherche et culture scientifique dans l’entre-deux guerre. Thesis, Université Paris V—René Descartes.
Einsiedel, E. (1989). Portrayals of science and technology in the Canadian press. Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, January, San Francisco.
Einsiedel, E. (1990a). Scientific literacy: A survey of adult Canadians. Calgary: University of Calgary.
Einsiedel, E. (1990b). Framing science and technology in the Canadian press: A preliminary report. Calgary: University of Calgary.
Einsiedel, E. (1992). Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 89–101.
Einsiedel, E. (2008). Public participation and dialogue. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 173–184). London/New York: Routledge.
Einsiedel, E., & Eastlick, D. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy. Science Communication, 21(4), 323–343.
Einsiedel, E., & Thorne, B. (1998). Public response to uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43–57). Mahwah: Lawrence Eribaulm.
Einsiedel, E., Jelsøe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 83–98.
Farr, M. F. (1993). Common sense, science and social representation. Public Understanding of Science, 2(3), 189–204.
Filiatrault, P. & Ducharme, J. (1990). Le développement des sciences et de la technologie au Québec: perceptions de la population. Montréal: Association canadienne-française pour l’avancement de sciences.
Fourez, G. (2002). La construction des sciences. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Fournier, M., & Maheu, L. (1975). Nationalisme et champ scientifique québécois. Sociologie et Societes, 7(2), 89–114.
Gagnon, J.-M. & Morin, L. (1986). La diffusion de la culture scientifique et technique au Québec. Sainte-Fooy: Conseil de la science et de la technologie.
Gascoigne, T., Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B. & Shi, S. (2010). Is science communication its own field? Journal of Science Communication, 9(3)C04.
Gauthier, E. (2011). Foodborne microbial risks in the press: The framing of listeriosis in Canadian newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 270–286.
Gingras, Y. (1991). Les origines de la recherche scientifique au Canada. Montréal: Boréal.
Gingras, Y. (1994). Pour l’avancement des sciences: Histoire de l’ACFAS, 1923–1993. Montréal: Boréal.
Gingras, Y. (2004). L’université en mouvement. Egalité, 50, 13–28.
Godard, B., Ozdemir, V., Fortin, M., & Egalité, N. (2010). Ethnocultural community leaders’ views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: A qualitative research study. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 469–485.
Godin, B. (1993a). Les indicateurs de culture scientifique et technique: quand dire, c’est ne rien faire. In D. Côté, G. Paquet, & J.-P. Souque (Eds.), La prospérité en péril (pp. 49–60). Ottawa: ACFAS Outaouais.
Godin, B. (1993b). La politique scientifique et la notion de culture scientifique et technique: les aléas politiques d’une idée floue. Recherches sociographiques, XXXIV(2), 305–327.
Godin, B. (1999). Les usages sociaux de la culture scientifique. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Godin, B., Gingras, Y., & Bourneuf, E. (1998). Les indicateurs de culture scientifique et technique. Sainte-Foy: Conseil de la science et de la technologie.
Goodwin, R., Haque, S., Binti, S., Hassan, S., & Dhanoa, A. (2011). Representations of swine flu: Perspectives from a Malaysian pig farm. Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 477–490.
Göpfert, W. (2007). The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society (pp. 215–226). New York/London: Routledge.
Heaton, L., Millerand, F., & Proulx, S. (2010). ‘Tela botanica’: une fertilisation croisée des amateurs et des experts. Hermes, 57, 61–68.
Heaton, L., Millerand, F., Crespel, E., & Proulx, S. (2011). La réactualisation de la contribution des amateurs à la botanique: Le collectif en ligne ‘Tela botanica’. Terrains & Travaux, 18, 155–173.
Heidegger, M. (1958). Essais et conférence. Paris: Gallimard.
Hivon, M., Lehoux, P., Denis, J.-L., & Rock, M. (2010). Marginal voices in the media coverage of controversial health interventions: How do they contribute to the public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 34–51.
Hobsbawn, E. (1994). The age of extremes: 1914–1991. London: Abacus.
Jacobi, D. (1986). Diffusion et vulgarisation: Itinéraires du texte scientifique. Paris: Les belles lettres.
Jacobi, D. (1987). Textes et images de la vulgarisation scientifique. Berne: Peter Lang.
Jacobi, D. (1999). La communication scientifique: Discours, figures, modèles. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Jacobi, D., & Schiele, B. (1993). Science in magazines, and its readers. Public Understanding of Science, 2(1), 3–20.
Jauréguiberry, F., & Proulx, S. (2011). Usages et enjeux des technologies de communication. Toulouse: Editions érès.
Jones, M., & Salter, B. (2010). Proceeding carefully: Assisted human reproduction policy in Canada. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 420–434.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973[1964]). Foundations of behavioral research. Toronto: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Lasswell, H. L. (1948). Structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A book of readings. New York: Harper.
Latour, B. (1984). Les microbes: Guerre et Paix, suivi de Irréductions. Paris: Métailié et Pandore.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1984). L’esprit de sel: science, culture, politique. Paris: Seuil.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1994). La vulgarisation: Mission impossible? Interface, 15(2), 36–41.
Lewenstein, B. (1992). Public understanding of science in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 45–68.
Lewenstein, B. (1994). A survey of activities in public communication of science and technology in the United States. In B. Schiele (Ed.), When science becomes culture (pp. 119–178). Sainte-Foy/Ottawa: Editions MultiMondes/University of Ottawa Press.
Linteau, P.-A. (2000). Un débat historique: l’entrée du Québec dans la modernité et la signification de la révolution tranquille. In Y. Bélanger, R. Comeau, & C. Métivier (Eds.), La révolution tranquille 40 ans plus tard: un bilan (pp. 21–41). Montréal: VLB.
Locke, S. (2005). Fantastically reasonable: Ambivalence in the representation of science and technology in super-hero comics. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 25–46.
Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135–163.
Longstaff, H., & Burgess, M. M. (2010). Recruiting for representation in public deliberation of the ethics of biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 212–224.
MacLean, S., & Burgess, M. M. (2010). In the public interest: Assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 486–496.
Maillé, M.-E., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 70–79.
Massicotte, L., & Vaillancourt, F. (2008). Le fédéralisme américain: évolution historique, institutions politiques et flux financiers. In M. Fortmann & P. Martin (Eds.), Le système américain. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Medlock, J. (2011). Rubrique: ‘Canada, science communication in’. In S. H. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (Vol. 1, pp. 103–107). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Miller, J. D. (1983a). The American people and science policy. New York: Pergamon.
Miller, J. D. (1983b). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
Miller, J. D. (1989). Scientific literacy. Paper presented to the American Association of the Advancement of Science, January 1989, San Franscico.
Miller, J. D. (1999). Public attitudes toward science and technology, 1979–1999: Integrated codebook. Chicago: The Chicago Academy of Science, International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, mimeo.
Miller, J. D. (2000). Scientific literacy and citizenship in the 21st century. In B. Schiele & E. Koster (Eds.), Science centers for this century (pp. 370–413). Sainte-Foy: MultiMondes.
Miller, J. D., Pifer, L. K., & Ressmeyer, T. J. (1993). Public attitudes toward science and technology, 1979–1992: Integrated codebook. Chicago: The Chicago Academy of Science, International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, mimeo.
Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Bilbao: Fundación BBV.
Moles, A. A., & Oulif, J.-M. (1967). Le troisième homme, vulgarisation scientifique et radio. Diogène, 58, 29–40.
Montpetit, R. (2000). Beyond the ‘science center’, toward a social interpretation of science and technology. In B. Schiele & E. H. Koster (Eds.), Science centers for this century (pp. 209–229). Sainte-Foy: Editions MultiMondes.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science. New York: W.H. Freeman.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1963). La science et la politique des gouvernements: L’influence de la science et de la technique sur la politique nationale et internationale. Rapport de la Commission consultative spéciale pour la politique scientifique auprès du secrétaire général. OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1971). Science, croissance et société: Une perspective nouvelle. Rapport du groupe spécial du Secrétaire général sur les nouveaux concepts des politiques de la science. OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1981). La politique scientifique et technologique pour les années 80. OECD.
Olson, J., & Russel, T. (Eds.). (1984). L’enseignement des sciences dans les écoles canadiennes (Vol. III). Ottawa: Conseil de sciences du Canada.
Orpwood, G., & Souque, J.-P. (1984). L’enseignement des sciences dans les écoles canadiennes (Vol. I, II). Ottawa: Conseil de sciences du Canada.
Paquette, J. (2009). Communiquer la science: métier conflit de normes et harcèlement social. Ethique publique, 11(2), 61–71.
Paquette, J. (2011). Science as culture and leisure: Cultural policy, industry and scientific culture in the Canadian context. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(1), 39–51.
Phillips, S. & Orsini, M. (2002). Mapping the links: Citizen involvement in policy processes. Discussion paper F 21, prepared for the Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.
Pitre, R. (1996). L’usage de la notion de culture scientifique et technique dans les discours politiques au Québec. Thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Priest, S. H. (2010). Coming of age in the academy? The status of our emerging field. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), 1–9.
Provençal, J. (2011). Extending the reach of research as a public good: Moving beyond the paradox of ‘zero-sum language games’. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 101–116.
Raichvarg, D., & Jacques, J. (1991). Savants et ignorants: Une histoire de la vulgarisation des sciences. Paris: Seuil.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Santerre, L. (2008). From democratization of knowledge to bridge building between science, technology and society. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 289–300). New York: Springer.
Schiele, B. (1978). Incidence télévisuelle sur la diffusion des connaissances scientifiques—Science-Réalité: un cas particulier de vulgarisation scientifique. Thesis, Université de Montréal.
Schiele, B. (1983). Les enjeux cachés de la vulgarisation scientifique. Communication Information, 5(2–3), 157–186.
Schiele, B. (1986). Vulgarisation et télévision. Social Science Information, 25(1), 189–206.
Schiele, B. (2000). The silences of scientific museology. In B. Schiele & E. H. Koster (Eds.), Science centers for this century (pp. 449–491). Sainte-Foy: Editions MultiMondes.
Schiele, B. (2005a). Publiciser la science! Pour quoi faire? In I. Paillart (Ed.), La publicisation de la science (pp. 11–51). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Schiele, B. (2005b). La médiation: quand le public va à la rencontre de son musée. In J. Davallon & B. Schiele (Eds.), Logiques du Patrimoine, Logiques de la culture (pp. 99–127). Sainte Foy: Editions MultiMondes.
Schiele, B. (2008a). On and about the deficit model in an age of free flow. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 93–117). New York: Springer.
Schiele, B. (2008b). Science museums and science centers. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Public communication of science and technology (pp. 27–39). London/New York: Routledge.
Schiele, B. (2009). Le rôle des journalistes comme médiateurs doit être repensé. In A. Char & R. Côté (Eds.), La révolution internet (pp. 109–119). Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Schiele, B. (2011). Suggesting cultural indicators derived from exhibitory science. In W. M. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the world (pp. 385–399). New York/London: Routledge.
Schiele, B. (in press). La muséologie un domaine de recherches. In A. Meunier, L’Avenir de la muséologie. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Schiele, B., & Jacobi, D. (1988). La vulgarisation scientifique: Thèmes de recherche. In B. Schiele & D. Jacobi (Eds.), Vulgariser la science: Le procès de l’ignorance (pp. 12–46). Seyssel: Champ Vallon.
Schiele, B., & Koster, E. H. (2000). Science centers for this century. Sainte-Foy: Editions MultiMondes.
Schiele, B., & Larocque, G. (1981). Le message vulgarisateur. Communications, 33, 165–183.
Schiele, B., Landry, A. & Schiele, A. (2011). Science communication in Canada: An inventory for the major PCST initiatives carried out in Canada. Research report to the Korean Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity. Montreal: CIRST-UQAM, University of Quebec at Montreal.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Special Senate Committee. (1970). Bons, mauvais, ou simplement inévitables ? Rapport du Comité spécial du Sénat sur les moyens de communication de masse (Vol. III). Ottawa: Imprimeur de la Reine pour le Canada.
Tremblay, V., & Roy, J. (1985). Sondage d’opinion en matière de science et technologie: Faits saillants et rapport d’analyse. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de Science et de la Technologie, mimeo.
Trench, B. (2007). How the internet changed science journalism. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society (pp. 133–141). New York/ London: Routledge.
Trench, B. & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3)C03.
Turnbull, L. & Aucoin, P. (2006). Fostering Canadians’ role in public policy: A strategy of institutionalizing public involvement in policy. Research report P07, Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.
Ungar, S., & Bray, D. (2005). Silencing science: Partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the danger of secondhand smoke. Public Understanding of Science, 14(5), 5–23.
Wagner, W. (2007). Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 7–22.
Walmsley, H. (2010). Biobanking, public consultation, and the discursive logics of deliberation: Five lessons from British Columbia. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 452–468.
Weaver, W. (1951). AAAS policy. Science, 114, 471–472.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164–193.
Westley, B. H., & MacLean, M., Jr. (1957). A conceptual model for communication research. Journalism Quarterly, 34(1), 31–38.
Wynne, B. (1989). Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. Environment, 31(2), 10–15, and 33–37.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schiele, B., Landry, A. (2012). The Development of Science Communication Studies in Canada. In: Schiele, B., Claessens, M., Shi, S. (eds) Science Communication in the World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4278-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4279-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)