THE DESTINY OF VISUALIZATIONS IN PUBLIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: BETWEEN ACTION AND REPRESENTATION
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2021-4-273-292
The article discusses scientific visualizations in three contexts. The context of the visual turn emphasizes attention to the ambiguous character of images in social interactions – as representations and as agents. The context of the crisis of scientific representations concerns scientific visualizations, which are the way out of it due to their linking of theory and reality. The context of public science communication demonstrates visualizations as activity changing the relationship between public actors and as representation of important scientific information. In the transition from the second context to the third, the author finds the collision of the destiny of scientific visualizations. Visualizations in public science communication turn out to be both scientific and political objects that represent scientific research and take part in the processes of decision-making. In professional science communication, the ambiguous nature of scientific visualizations turns out to be constructive. Scientific visualizations exist simultaneously as representations referring to reality and as actions that bring together the scientific community. However, in public science communication, the assembly of a community through scientific visualizations turns out to be no less significant, but more problematic since the interests of the subjects participating in the interaction are different. Nevertheless, visualizations in public science communication work quite effectively, contributing to the dissemination of scientific literacy in the popularization and to the involvement of citizens in decision-making. In this case, conditions arise that prevent the retention of the constructive ambiguity of visualizations. As such conditions, the author examines the emerging digital mediators of communication that enhance the activities of visualizations, as well as uncertainty as a subject of “post-normal” science, which is difficult to represent through images. In conclusion, the author proposes a way out of this situation, contributing to the retention of the necessary ambiguity of visualizations in public science communication.
Keywords: scientific visualizations, public science communication, representation, objectivity, policy, digitalization, uncertainty
References:
Ardashkin, I. B., & Surovtsev, V. A. (2021). Smart technologies as a concept and phenomenon: On criteria. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 60, 32–44. (In Russian).
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2017). Kul’turnye povoroty. Novye orientiry v naukakh o kul’ture [Cultural Turns New Orientations in the Study of Culture]. Translated from English by S. Tashkenov. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
Bloor, D. (2017). Anti-Latour. Logos, 27(2), 85–134. (In Russian).
Bucchi, M., & Saracino, B. (2016). “Visual science literacy”: Images and public understanding of science in the digital age. Science Communication, 38(6), 812–819.
Coopmans, C., Vertesi, J., Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.) (2014). Representation in scientific practice revisited. MIT Press.
Dorofeev, D. Yu., & Semenova, V. N. (2020). The image of man and the visualization of political communication in the postmodern era. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Filosofiya i konfliktologiya – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(4), 687–699. (In Russian).
Elkins, J. (1995). Art History and Images that Are Not Art. Art Bulletin, 77(4), 533–571.
Franker, M. A. M. (2020). Visualisations in science communication: Friend or foe? Medical Writing, 29(1), 11–15.
Fuller, S. (2021). Postpravda. Znanie kak bor’ba za vlast’ [Post-truth: knowledge as a power game]. Translated from English by D. Kralechkin. HSE.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Future, 25(7), 739–755.
Galison, P. & Jones, C. A. (Eds.) (1998). Picturing science, producing art. Routledge.
Gavrilenko, S. M. (2020). The cartographic dispositif: Few remarks on “globe” of Peter Sloterdijk. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 2(24), 131–150. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2020-2-131-150
Golberg, M. H., et al. (2019). The experience of consensus: Video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Science Communication, 41(5), 659– 673.
Grady, J. (2004). Working with visible evidence. In C. Knowles, & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the social landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination (pp. 18–31). Routledge.
Grishechkina, N. V., & Tikhonova, S. V. (2018). Civil expertise and scientific knowledge in the digital era. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 55(2), 123–138. (In Russian).
Huang. G., Li, H., & Li, K. (2019). Show, not tell: The contingency role of infographics versus text in the differential effects of message strategies on optimistic bias. Science Communication, 41(6), 732–760.
Ivanov, K. V. (2020). Cartography as a tool of imperial policy in Central Asia. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 2(24), 151–181. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2020-2-151-181
John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87.
Kabat, G. C. (2017). Taking distrust of science seriously: To overcome public distrust in science, scientists need to stop pretending that there is a scientific consensus on controversial issues when there is not. EMBO. Rep., 18(7), 1052–1055.
Latour, B. (2017a). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. Logos, 27(2), 95–156. (In Russian).
Latour, B. (2017b). For David Bloor and Beyond. Logos, 27(2), 135–162. (In Russian).
Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15, 37–66.
Lynch, M. (1994). Representation is overrated: Some critical remarks about the use of the concept of representation in science studies. Configurations, 2(1), 137–149.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. The University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995). Picture theory. University of Chicago Press.
Morton, T. (2018). Being ecological. The MIT Press.
Moxey, K. (2008). Visual studies and the iconic turn. Journal of Visual Culture, 7, 131–146.
Numanović, A. (2017). Why policy advocates should pay more attention to data visualization? Policy hub. 12.09.2017. http://www.policyhub.net/en/experience-and-practice/214
O’Neill, S. J., Boykoff, M., Niemeyer, S., & Day, S. A. (2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 23, 413–421.
Peters, H. P. (2014). Scientists as public experts: expectations and responsibilities. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 70–82). Routledge.
Rigutto, C. (2017). The landscape of online visual communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 16(02), C06_en, 1–9.
Robinson, I. (2016). Data visualisation: Contributions to evidence-based decision-making. Shorthand Social. https://goo.gl/3XWUZc
Salter, Ch., Burri, R. V., & Dumit, J. (2016). Art, Design, and Performance. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, C.A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), Handbook on science and technology studies (pp. 139–168). MIT Press.
Shcherbinina, N. G. (2019). The definition of media reality and communication in the context of the theory of the political construction of reality. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 50, 219–232. (In Russian).
Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409–425.
Ventrella, F. (2015). Visual turn. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 25, pp. 207–213). 2nd edition. Elsevier.
( 363.4 kB ) 
( 358.29 kB )
Issue: 4, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 273 — 292
Downloads: 655