I am nearing the end of my PhD work and expect to defend my dissertation this spring.
I have been focusing, again on how the sciences are communicated to the public, through the work of journalists who write about the sciences. The problem of pseudo science and public misunderstanding of the sciences, scientific method and how science functions in our society has, quite frankly, risen to epic proportions. This issue has profound ramifications for our way of life and the rest of the creatures with whom we share this planet.
Specifically, I examine the problem of "What Gets Lost in the Translation?" when peer reviewed scientific papers about human induced climate change (HICC) are used by journalists for newspaper science articles. Previous work has examined "What Gets Lost?" through detailed qualitative discourse analyses. I ask the question of whether "What Gets Lost?" can be measured through quantitative analyses, where a set of discourse analysis macro-variables (DAMs) based on the physical characteristics of a discourse can be designed and then employed to examine the differences between the scientific discourses and the subsequent journalistic discourses. I selected the data from HICC because of my past expertise in meteorology and thermodynamics, and because of the high level of public misunderstanding of HICC.
My Masters Thesis
I began my foray into higher education in Physics and Mathematics many years ago, graduating with a B.Sc. from the University of Windsor. At the same time I, through my work in meteorology, became interested in how the non-scientist processes the sciences, especially through the media. It is arguable that no other physical science has had a greater media connection than does meteorology. There are entire TV channels dedicated to the weather, and almost every newscast in radio and TV has a weatherperson/meteorologist. And before their demise, newspapers were a physical representation to the public of the face and facts of the weather and the meteorological sciences. So, one would think that we, at least on a cursory level, as a society, would have a great connection and affinity for the sciences as represented by science specialists like meteorologists, that because of this, the other sciences would be viewed as areas of interest for the public. My hopes were dashed. I became fascinated with the great divide between the sciences, the public and the media. No matter what I tried, as a scientist in the media, the media was at best a reluctant partner, and always had a predilection for sensationalism, hyperbole, and false dichotomies. Pseudo science, dogmatic right wing conspiracy theories, flat-earthers and creationists, religious based counter science, climate change deniers all dominated the science discussions, as though there was a real argument to be made for the veracity of the anti-science argument in spite of the vast and incredible science based technology we, as a civilization, as immersed in.
My thought was that education might help and I would go back to school and study how people learned in order to understand the disconnect. I decided to begin with a Masters of Arts (Research) in Education, specializing in the role that TV plays in our understanding of the sciences. My Masters was titled and was
How Does Television Represent Science? It led to a book called "Mediamediocrity".
My Masters really failed to give me a greater understanding of "why" there was such a disconnect between the sciences and the media and why this situation appeared to be becoming more critical. It was evident and apparent on almost all levels that there was a massive disconnect, but why was it accepted and why was the media so anti-science and conspiracy/hyperbole oriented eluded me. I decided that a greater plumbing of the academic depths was in order and that perhaps a PhD would help. I spent the first four years of my PhD studies reading under the tutelage of my learned and wise advisor. He pointed my studies toward discourse theory and its role in analyzing and understanding how we communicate. This has led me to where I am today. I expect to wrap up my dissertation before year's end, after seven long and wonderful years of learning. My dissertation is titled
"WHAT GETS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION?" Using A Macro-Variable Approach to Discourse Analysis (DA) to Aid In Understanding the Differences Between Scientific Method and Journalistic Method
And after my defence, I will post it here on my web site....and should you be so inclined, with a little late night, put-you-to-sleep reading.