The authors based their four different science programme viewers on
these two parameters:
1) "the legitimacy accorded to television as a source of knowledge;
2) the type
of memories left by their school experience."
Here is their summary:
"1. The
intellectual reading
+Television is not a legitimate source of knowledge about science;
+A mediator is not desirable
+A documentary that gives an apparently unmediated view of the scientific world is the preferred form.
2. The
beneficiary reading
+Television is a good source of knowledge, that is accumulated bit by bit
+A mediator is
essential and should be very present
3. The intimistic reading
+No particular criticism of television as
a source of knowledge
+An extreme sensitivity to what is interrpreted as a reminder of school or as a suggestion that
the viewer may be ignorant or unable to understand
4. The excluded reading
+Science cannot be understood
+Television is no help."
"That means that there is no single, ideal way of presenting science. Different
strategies must be adopted for different publics. For some people, the mediation of a television host or reporter is
essential, protecting them from an unfamiliar world. For others it is unacceptable. A clearly defined didactic
situation where the knowledge differential between the viewer and the scientist or the TV host is underscored can be happily
accepted by one category but rejected by another. Behind these differing reactions to form, we can see different relations
to the media, different expectations of science, and even different ideas about what the popularization of science can mean:
the transmission of practical, every-day knowledge, or the chance to meet a scientist close-up. All these different
expectations and different relations to knowledge must be taken into account to understand the success--or failure--of science
on television."
A link to the abstract is here.
I do believe, though, that their sample really is strongly culture
dependent. These were French people watching French television, although their conclusions seem valid enough
from my experience of interacting with students. However, I will keep my eye out for a similar study with American
audiences.
FYI, I suppose I fall in the category of an intimistic viewer: I've learned plenty from
television (more from books, of course) so I would have a favorable view of TV as a source of knowledge, the acquisition
of knowledge is not problematic but do not particularly enjoy if I feel the show is "talking down" to
me. And I can go either way with a host or not...it just depends on what I am watching!
If you know
of a similar study, let me know.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|