A comunicação de ciência em centros de estudos de gênero internacionais

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2175497772243

Keywords:

Science communication, Gender Studies, Research Centers

Abstract

Science communication in areas susceptible to controversy such as Gender Studies presents challenges to research centers in their quest to disseminate scientific knowledge and avoid common sense and biased, politicized readings. This study compares science communication in five Gender Studies centers in Cyprus, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Denmark, and Portugal. Methodologically, we used rhetorical analysis of publications in communication channels, content analysis of communication themes, tools and actions, and interviews. The results show similarities in the most disseminated themes, tools and communication actions, although the activity varies in the dissemination and organization of initiatives, revealing challenges related to the language itself and differences in audience engagement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Maria João Cunha, CIEG/ISCSP-ULisboa

Maria João Cunha is an Associate Professor at ISCSP - Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas of the University of Lisbon, in the area of Communication. She has a degree in Social Communication and a Masters in Sociology from the University of Lisbon. She has a PhD in Communication Sciences, specializing in Sociology of Communication. She is a researcher and co-founder member of CIEG - Interdisciplinary Center for Gender Studies and collaborator of CAPP - Center for Administration and Public Policies in matters related to gender and media representations. She was vice-president of the Executive Council of OBERCOM - Observatório Português da Comunicação. She was co-coordinator of the Gender and Sexuality section of the APS - Portuguese Sociological Association. She has published articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is a reviewer for several journals. She is the author of several works, such as "The Body Image", "Sociology of Communication", "Body and Image in the Consumer Society", "Image Studies".

Beatriz Valente, CIEG/ISCSP/Universidade de Lisboa

Beatriz Valente graduated in Communication Sciences at ISCSP, University of Lisbon. She was an intern at CIEG - Interdisciplinary Center for Gender Studies, during the academic year 2021-2022.

References

Amâncio, L. & Oliveira, J. M. (2014). Ambivalências e desenvolvimentos dos estudos de género em Portugal. Faces de Eva. Estudos sobre a mulher.

Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Benchmarking, An International Journa l- Emerald Group Publishing, 258-259.

Besley, J. C., & Nibset, M. (2011). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 644-649.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, pp. 289.

Burns, T. W., O´Connor, D. J., & Stolckmayer, S. M. (2003). Public Understanding of Science. Science Communication: a contemporary definition, pp. 183-202.

Casini, S., & Neresini, F. (2012). Behind Closed Doors- Scientists´ and Science Communicators´ Discourses on Science Society. A Study Across European Research Institutions. Tecnoscienza, 37-62.

Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios de Género. Quiénes somos CIEG. Consultado a 6 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em: https://cieg.unam.mx/cieg.php

Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudos de Género. Sobre nós. Consultado a 23 de dezembro de 2021. Disponível em: http://cieg.iscsp.ulisboa.pt/sobre-nos

Center for Women´s and Gender Studies University of the Philippines. About UPCWGS. Consultado a 6 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em: https://cws.up.edu.ph/?page_id=427

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design- Qualitative, quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.

Duarte, M. & Mazzotti, T. (2004). Análise retórica do discurso como proposta metodológica para as pesquisas em representação social. Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Durkheim, É. (2001). As Regras do Método Sociológico. Editora Presença .

Espírito Santo, P. (2015). Introdução à metodologia das ciências sociais: Génese, fundamentos e problemas. Lisboa: Sílabo.

Fixmer-Oraiz, N. & Wood, J. T. (2015). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. USA: Cengage.

Gonçalves, A. T. (2015). Análise de Conteúdo, Análise do Discurso e Análise de Conversação- Estudo Preliminar sobre diferenças conceituais e teórico-metodológicas.

Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Ruler, B. V., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining Strategic Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3-35.

Holland, R. E. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury.

Kanaza, F.U. (2020). A Language Function: The Analysis of Conative Function in Meghan Markle’s Speech. Etnolingual, 4(1), 54—73.

Nações Unidas. Igualdade de género. Consultado a 20 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em: https://unric.org/pt/mensagem-do-secretario-geral-da-onua-conferencia-internacional-contra-o-terrorismoriade-5-8-de-fevereiro-de-2005proferida-pelo-sr-javier-ruperez-director-executivodireccao-do-comite-cont-3/

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage Publications, pp. 201.

Nibset, M. C., & Markowitz, E. (2016). Strategic Science Communication on Environmental issues. pp. 2-20.

KVINFO. About KVINFO. Consultado a 6 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em https://kvinfo.dk/about-kvinfo/

Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies. Who we are. Consultado a 6 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em https://medinstgenderstudies.org/who/

Nibset, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). American Journal of Botany. What´s next for science communication? Promissing directions and lingering distractions, pp. 1767-1768.

Pinsky, C. B. (2009). Estudos de Gênero e História Social. Revista Estudos Feministas, 159-189.

QS Top Universities 2021. Ranking Mundial de Universidades QS 2021. Consultado a 20 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2021

Revista ULisboa. Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudos de Género. Consultado a 26 de dezembro de 2021. Disponível em: http://cieg.iscsp.ulisboa.pt/images/ULisboa%20- %20LGBT%20issue.pdf

Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., & Schultz, J. C. (2020). Science Communication. A Scale to Measure Science Communication Training Effectiveness, pp. 91-95.

Rodriguez, M. P., & Cucklanz, L. (2014). Gender Dimension in Media and Communication Studies: Main Concepts and Illustrations in Mass Mediated Texts. Análisi 50, 27-38.

University of Cambridge Centre for Gender Studies. About the centre. Consultado a 6 de janeiro de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.gender.cam.ac.uk/about

Yuan, S., Oshita, T., AbiGhannam, N., Dudo, A., & C., J. (2017). Two-way Communication between scientists and the public: a view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, 2-17.

Downloads

Published

2023-01-24

How to Cite

Cunha, M. J., & Valente, B. (2023). A comunicação de ciência em centros de estudos de gênero internacionais. Animus.Inter-American Journal of Media Communication, 21(47). https://doi.org/10.5902/2175497772243

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 47 (2022)

Section

Dossiê - Comunicação e Ciência: divulgação científica profissional, estratégias, relação comunicação científica e sociedade

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Animus. Revista Interamericana de Comunicação Midiática

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The authors of texts approved by the referees of Animus - Inter-American Journal of Media Communication automatically concede, and without any charge, the right to the first publication of the submitted material.