This idiosyncratic bibliography constructed by NC State Communication Faculty Andrew Binder, Nicole Lee and Jean Goodwin, reflects the diversity of work on science communication in fields including journalism and mass communication, public relations/strategic communication, rhetoric, science & technology studies, and technical communication.
Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jamieson, K. H., Kahan, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743
Binder, A. R. (2010). Routes to attention or shortcuts to apathy? Exploring domain-specific communication pathways and their implications for public perceptions of controversial science. Science Communication, 32(3), 383-411. http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009345471
Blythe, S., Grabill, J. T., & Riley, K. (2008). Action research and wicked environmental problems: Exploring appropriate roles for researchers in professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(3), 272-298.
Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2009). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). Routledge.
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement_4), 13614–13620. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Dudo, A., et al. (2010). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754-777.
Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148867–18. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written communication, 15(3), 330-350.
Goodwin, J. (2018). Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In S. Priest, J. Goodwin, & M.F. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication (pp. 1-21). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kahan, D. M. (2017). On the sources of ordinary science knowledge and extraordinary science ignorance. In K.H. Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D.A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication.
Katz, S. B., & Miller, C. R. (1996). The low-level radioactive waste siting controversy in North Carolina: Toward a rhetorical model of risk communication. Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America, 111-140.
Lee, N. M., & 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.
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436.
Miller, C. (2004). Presumptions of expertise: The role of ethos in risk analysis. Configurations, 11(2), 163-202.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and policy for sustainable development, 51(2), 12-23.
Pielke Jr, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental science & policy, 7(5), 385-403.
Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement_4), 13585-13592. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74. doi:10.1177/0963662504042690
Walker, K., & Walsh, L. (2012). “No One Yet Knows What the Ultimate Consequences May Be”: How Rachel Carson transformed scientific uncertainty into a site for public participation in Silent Spring. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(1), 3-34. http://doi.org/10.1177/1050651911421122
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281-304.