Attitudes of Spanish television professionals about science on television and scientific dissemination
Downloads
Abstract
A study is presented that aims to observe the attitudes of Spanish television professionals with managerial responsibilities in the creation, production and broadcast of content about the relationship of audiences with scientific content and scientific dissemination. The study followed a mixed methods procedure: qualitative-quantitative. Two focus groups with the participation of 5 professionals each allowed to identify the attitudes. Subsequently, a study of quantitative attitudes (Likert scales) applied to 450 professionals from 6 regions, employees of public and private television from different coverage areas, allowed to magnify these attitudes. The main results show that, in general, these professionals do not have clear, intense and consistent attitudes regarding the topics covered. However, they consider that television is a suitable medium for transmitting scientific information and that it is positive that television disseminates. In addition, the ownership of the medium for which they work, the region to which they belong, familiarity with the production of scientific content and the nature of the work they do are related in different ways to specific attitudes. This information is relevant for academia, knowledge promotion institutions, the Spanish audiovisual system and audiovisual regulators.Keywords
attitudes towards science, popular science, Spanish television, professionals from the televisionDownloads
References
• Azjen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman
(Eds.), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
• Azjen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1990). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
• Bauer, M.W. & Howard, S. (2013). The culture of Science in modern Spain: An Analysis of
public attitudes across time, age cohorts and regions. Madrid: BBVA Foundation.
• Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training
scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263.
• Breakwell, G. M., & Robertson, T. (2001). The gender gap in science attitudes, parental and
peer influences: Changes between 1987-88 and 1997-98. Public Understanding of Science,
10(1), 71-82.
• Breslin, C., Li, S., Tupker, E., & Sdao-Jarvie, K. A. (2001). Application of the theory of planned
behavior to predict research dissemination: A prospective study among addiction
counselors. Science Communication, 22(4), 423-437.
• Caldwell, J. T. (2008). Production culture: Industrial reflexivity and critical practice in film
and television. London: Duke University Press.
• Cámara, M., Muñoz van den Eynde, A., & López Cerezo, J.A. (2017). Attitudes towards
science among Spanish citizens: The case of critical engagers. Public Understanding of
Science, August,1-18.
• Cano-Orón, L., Portalés Oliva, M., Llorca-Abad, G. (2017). La divulgación en la televisión
pública: el caso de RTVE en 2016. adComunica. Revista Científica de Estrategias, Tendencias
e Innovación en Comunicación, 14, 201-228.
• Cortiñas-Rovira, S., Alonso-Marcos, F., Pont-Sorribes, C., & Escribà-Sales, E. (2015). Science
journalists’ perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain. Public Understanding
of Science, 24(4), 450-465.
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. London: SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
California: SAGE Publications.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
6, 475-494.
• Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Cambridge: Polity.
• Dornfeld, B. (1998). Producing public television, producing public culture. New York: Princeton
University Press.
• Dubois, B. y Burns, J. A. (1975). An analysis of the meaning of the question mark response
category in attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 869-884.
• Edwards, A. L. (1946). A critique of “neutral” items in attitude scales constructed by the
method of equal appearing intervals. Psychological Review, 53, 159-169.
• Elias, C. (2008). La razón estrangulada: La crisis de la ciencia en la sociedad contemporánea
Barcelona: Debate.
• Francés Domènec, M., y Llorca-Abad, G. (2017). Retos de la TDT local como base para una
televisión de proximidad. En M. Francés Domènec & G. Orozco (coords.), La televisión de
proximidad en el entorno transmedia (pp. 203-224). Madrid: Síntesis.
• Fortunato, J.A. (2016). Agenda-setting through the television programming schedule: an
examination of major league baseball on Fox. International Journal on Media Management,
18(3-4),163-180.
• Grosso-Mesa, J. (2017). Ciencia en televisión: las estrategias divulgativas del programa
Redes 2.0 de Eduard Punset (TVE 2008-2013). Tesis doctoral. Dir. Domingo Sánchez-Mesa
Martínez & Sergi Cortiñas Rovira. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
• Greenwood, M. R. C., & Riordan, D. G. (2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication,
23(1), 28-40.
• Gutiérrez Lozano, J.F. (2002). La divulgación científica en la programación de las televisiones
generalistas. Comunicar, 19, 43-48.
• Hadden, R. Y Johnston, A., 1982. Primary school pupils’attitudes to science: The years of
formation, Eur. J. Sci. Education, 4(1), pp. 397-407.
• Hadden, R. Y Johnston, A., 1983. Secondary school pupils’attitudes toscience: Theyearoferosion,
Eur.J.Sci. Education, 5(3), pp. 309-318.
• Hesmondhalgl, D., & Baker, S. (2011). Creative labour. Media work in three cultural industries.
London: Routledge.
• Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory: A suggested
modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
• Lehmkuhl, M. (2014). Current state and challenges of science in today’s TV: A look at the
interplay between supply and demand on European media markets. Actes d’Història de la
Ciència I de la Técnica, 7, 89-112.
• Lehmkuhl, M., Boyadjeva, P., Cunningham, Y., Karamanidou, C., Mörä, T., AVSA Team
(2016). Audience reach of science on televisión in 10 European countries. An analysis of
people meter data. Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), 223-235.
• León, B. (2002). Divulgar la ciencia en televisión: problemas y oportunidades. En Façeira,
M.J. (ed.), A divulgaçao científica nos medios (pp. 73-79). Avanca: Cine-clubew Avanca.
• Löffelholz, M. (2009). Heterogeneous -multidimensional-competing: Theoretical approaches
to journalism. In M. Löffelholz & D. Weaver (Eds.). Global journalism research: Theories,
Methods, Findings, Future (pp. 15-27). Hoboken: Wiley.
• Miller, J. (2012) What colleges and universities need to do to advance civic scientific literacy
and preserve American democracy. Liberal Education 98(4): 28–33.
• Mayer, V. (2016). The places where audience studies and production studies meet. Television
& New Media, 17(8), 706-718.
• McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
• McQuail, D. (2005). Mass communication theory (5th ed.). London: Sage.
• Moreno-Castro, C. (2004). Evolución y tendencias de los formatos televisivos de divulgación científica en España. Quaderns de Filología. Estudis de Comunicació, 2, 121-136.
• Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1997). Focus group kit: Volumes 1-6. London: SAGE Publications.
• Mulder, H. A., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. S. (2008). The state of science communication
programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30(2), 277-287.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bustamante, R. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for
developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 56-78.
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the
literature and its implications. International journal of science education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
• Open Society Institute (ed.) (2008). Television across Europe: More channels, less Independence.
Budapest: Open Society Institute.
• Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate
in public engagement of science activities? Science communication, 29(2), 242-263.
• Revuelta, G. & Corchero, C. (2015). Acceso a la información sobre ciencia y tecnología:
Evolución e implicaciones. En C.T. Albero (ed.), Percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología
2014 (pp. 99-129). Madrid: Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología,
FECYT.
• Revuelta, G., & Mazzonetto, M. (2008). La ciència i la tecnologia a la televisió d’àmbit català.
Quaderns del CAC, 30, 69-80.
• Rojas, A. J. y Fernández, J. S. (2000). Análisis de las alternativas de respuestas intermedias
mediante el modelo de escalas de clasificación. Metodología de Encuestas, 2(2), 171-183.
• Ross, P. (2012). Is there an expertise of production? The case of new media producers.
New Media & Society, 13, 912-928.
• Ross, P. (2014). Problematizing the user in user-centered production: A new Media Lab
meets its audiences. Social Studies of Science, 41, 251-270.
• Schäfer, M. S. (2011). Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication
on science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology
Compass, 5(6), 399-412.
• Scheufele, D.A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The evolution
of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
• Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (2010). Graduado en Comunicación Audiovisual. Memoria
de Grado. Disponible en: http://www.uab.cat/Document/66/644/Memoria%20
GRAU%20de%20Comunicacio%20audiovisual%20aprov.%20ANECA.pdf