The challenge for scholars of popularized science communication: explaining ourselves

I was lucky. More than 15 years ago, when I began doing research on the ways in which scientific and technological information gets reconstituted for public consumption, I did not have to dwell on reasons why. I did it because it was interesting. Some years earlier, as a beginning newspaper reporter, I was given the science heat almost by accident (1 showed up in the newsroom the day after the science writer had left). My initial feeling of panic matured into a passion for science, and I have devoted myself ever since to exploring the relationships between journalism and science and, more recently, to understanding what audiences do with the types of science information they encounter in the mass media. Passion is not a bad thing. It is crucial, I suspect, to good and enduring scholarship. But young scholars today must construct more substantive rationales for committing to particular subspecialties. That is particularly the case, I think, for those interested in popular science communication, which is attracting increasing numbers of scholars around the world. What is it about popularized scientific information, my more querulous colleagues ask, that permits-nay, encourages-the level of scholarly scrutiny that is rarely devoted to other content areas? I would like to try to answer that question in this brief essay. Our colleagues’ queries are important catalysts, for a field that can defend itself only affectively (with passion) and not cognitively (with rationales) is a weak one indeed. Additionally, any one scholar’s reasons why a field of enquiry has value can serve as statements of research priorities. Thus, I can fulfil the official mandate of this essay while indulging my own need to understand why we do what we do.