教學大綱 Syllabus

1—0915

Course introduction

Why does science communication matter?

2—0922

The importance of public communication of science

1. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193.
2. Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2012). Scientists’ intuitive failures. Scientists, July. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32384/title/Opinion--Scientists--Intuitive-Failures/
3. Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14040-14047.

3—0929

Challenges to the popularization of science

1. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387.
2. Walsh, L. (2015). The Double-edged sword of popularization: The role of science communication research in the Popsci.com comment shutoff. Science Communication, 37(5), 658-669.
3. Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E. (2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598-620.

Covid -19 communication

4—1006

Science, risk, & Covid-19

1. Fischhoff, B. (2020). Making decisions in a COVID-19 world. JAMA, 324(2), 139-140.
2. Aven, T., & Bouder, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: how can risk science help? Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), 849-854.

5—1013

Perception and preventive behaviors of Covid-19 in Taiwan

1. Chang, C. (2022). Cross-country comparison of effects of early government communication on personal empowerment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan and the United States. Health Communication, 37(4), 476-489.
2. Wang, P. W., Chen, Y. L., Chang, Y. P., Wu, C. F., Lu, W. H., & Yen, C. F. (2021). Sources of COVID-19-related information in people with various levels of risk perception and preventive behaviors in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(4), 2091.

Factors shaping opinions about science

6—1020

Decision-making process: Information shortcuts

1. Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audience form attitudes toward emerging technology. Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20-25.
2. Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.
3. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90.

7—1027

Framing

1. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.
2. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing Science. Science, 316(5821), 56.
3. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9-20.

8—1103

Scientific uncertainty

1. Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173-177.
2. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462. 
3. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. 

9—1110

Ethical and moral issues surrounding scientific issues

1. World Economic Forum (2016). Top 9 ethical issues in artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/top-10-ethical-issues-in-artificial-intelligence/

2. Gao S, He L, Chen Y, Li D, Lai K. (2020). Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care: Content Analysis of Social Media. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 (7):e16649

3. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T. J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature nanotechnology, 4(2), 91-94.

10—1117

Affect or emotion

1. Weber, E. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1), 103-120.
2. Shih, T. & Lin, C. (2017). Developing communication strategies for mitigating actions against global warming: Linking framing and a dual processing model. Environmental Communication.
3. O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won't do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.

Media, information, and science

11—1124

Media, knowledge and public attitudes toward scientific issues

1. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.
2. Lee, C. J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834.
3. Ho, S. S., Detenber, B. H., Rosenthal, S., & Lee, E. W. (2014). Seeking information about climate change: Effects of media use in an extended PRISM. Science Communication, 36(3), 270-295.

12—1201

The role of social media

1. Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41.
2. Ladwig, P., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Shaw, B. (2010). Narrowing the nano discourse? Materials Today, 13(5), 52-54.
3. Anderson, A. A. (2017). Effects of social media use on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.

13—1208

The role of popular media

1. Leiserowitz, A. (2004). Before and After The Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception. Environment (Washington DC), 46(9), 24-37.
2. Kirby, D. (2008). Hollywood Knowledge: Communication Between Scientific and Entertainment Cultures. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts (pp. 165-180): Springer Netherlands.
3. Nisbet, M. C., & Dudo, A. (2013). Entertainment media portrayals and their effects on the public understanding of science. In Hollywood chemistry: when science met entertainment (pp. 241-249). American Chemical Society.

14—1215

Misinformation

1. Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662-7669.
2. Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., Beets, B., & Brossard, D. (2020). Fact-checking as risk communication: the multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 1-8.
3. Lobo A., (2020). Politicization of facts, faltering public trust lead to rampant misinformation during pandemic. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/33pDG9D

15—1222

The effect of exposure to disagreement

1. Shih, T. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2013). Disagreement and value predispositions: Understanding public opinion about stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 357-367.
2. Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722.
3. Su, Y. (2021). It doesn’t take a village to fall for misinformation: Social media use, discussion heterogeneity preference, worry of the virus, faith in scientists, and COVID-19-related misinformation beliefs. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101547.

16—1229

No class (Working week 1：Working on and revising final project)

17—0105

No class (Working week 2：Working on and revising final project)

18—0112

Final Paper Due on Moodle before midnight today