Da emoção à transformação
Uma proposta analítica sobre a influência da comunicação pública da ciencia e da tecnologia
Palavras-chave:
comunicação pública da ciência e da tecnologia, cultura científica, apropriação social da ciência e da tecnologia, influência da comunicação científica, educação não formalResumo
Desde o seu início como disciplina acadêmica, a análise da comunicação pública da ciência e da tecnologia (CPCT) desenvolveu vários modelos sobre a relação estabelecida com o público, desde a ênfase na transmissão de informações até abordagens que reconhecem as contribuições do público e seu potencial para influenciar o rumo científico-tecnológico de uma sociedade. Essas abordagens devem ser complementadas por uma visão dos objetivos que podem orientar a prática da CPCT, para o que é necessário um quadro conceitual específico. O presente artigo propõe o modelo PODER, um espectro de cinco níveis de influência da CPCT na vida das pessoas: Prazer, Ordem, Decisão, Experiência ativa e Reforma. A proposta baseia-se nos conceitos de aprendizagem ao longo da vida e cultura científica, bem como nos modelos analíticos da CPCT e nas abordagens sociocríticas da educação. O modelo PODER descreve uma progressão de impacto, desde o vínculo emocional inicial com a ciência até a ação coletiva voltada para a transformação social, com o objetivo de construir uma ferramenta conceitual para o desenho, a análise e a avaliação de iniciativas de CPCT.
Downloads
Referências
Alcíbar Cuello, Miguel (2004). La divulgación mediática de la ciencia y la tecnología como recontextualización discursiva. Anàlisi: Quaderns de Comunicació i Cultura, (31), 43-70.
Alcíbar Cuello, Miguel (2015). Comunicación pública de la ciencia y la tecnología: Una aproximación crítica a su historia conceptual. Arbor, 191(773), a242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2015.773n3012.
Asimov, Isaac (1977). Introduccion a la ciencia. Barcelona: Editorial Plaza & Janés.
Baram-Tsabari, Ayelet & Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756.
Blackburn, Elizabeth & Epel, Elissa (2017). La solución de los telómeros: Un acercamiento revolucionario para vivir más joven, más sano y más tiempo. Aguilar.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2003). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brossard, Dominique & Lewenstein, Bruce (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. En LeeAnn Kahlor & Patricia Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science (11-39). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631.
Bruner, Jerome (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
Bubela, Tania, Nisbet, Matthew C., Borchelt, Rick, Brunger, Fern, Critchley, Cristine, Einsiedel, Edna, Geller, Gail, Gupta, Anil, Hampel, Jürgen, Hyde-Lay, Robyn, Jandciu, Eric W., Jones, S. Ashley, Kolopack, Pam, Lane, Summer, Lougheed, Tim, Nerlich, Brigitte, Ogbogu, Ubaka, O’Riordan, Kathleen, Ouellette, Colin & Caulfield, Timothy (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514.
Burke, Lydia E. Carol-Anne & Navas Iannini, Ana Maria (2021). Science engagement as insight into the science identity work nurtured in community‐based science clubs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(9), 1425-1454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21714.
Burns, Terry W., O’Connor, D. John & Stocklmayer, Susan M. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004.
Coletti, Amanda, McGloin, Rory, Embacher-Martin, Kimberly, Hamlin, Emily & Turner, Meredith (2023). Examining Oral Communication Skills in Communication Training Programs for STEM Professionals: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review. Science Communication, 45(6), 693-723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231202773.
Cortassa, Carina G. (2010). Del déficit al diálogo, ¿y después?: Una reconstrucción crítica de los estudios de comprensión pública de la ciencia. Revista iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 5(15), 47-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-822.
Dan, Viorela & Dixon, Graham N. (2021). Fighting the Infodemic on Two Fronts: Reducing False Beliefs Without Increasing Polarization. Science Communication, 43(5), 674-682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211020411.
Davies, Sarah R., Halpern, Megan, Horst, Maja, Kirby, David & Lewenstein, Bruce (2019). Science stories as culture: Experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 18(05), A01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201.
Dawson, Emily (2014). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.957558.
Dawson, Emily (2017). Social justice and out‐of‐school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces. Science Education, 101(4), 539-547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21288.
De Cózar Escalante, José Manuel & Gómez-Ferri, Javier (2022). Cultura científica comunitaria para una pandemia. La COVID persistente. Arbor, 198(806), a673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2022.806003.
Falk, John H. & Storksdieck, Martin (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20319.
Foucault, Michel (1988). El sujeto y el poder. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 50(3), 3-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3540551.
Freire, Paulo (1972). Pedagogía del Oprimido. Siglo XXI.
García-Guerrero, Miguel & Esparza-Manrique, Viridiana (2024). From theory to action: The collective adventure of science recreation clubs. Metode Science Studies Journal, (15), 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.15.27173.
García-Guerrero, Miguel & Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2022). Characterizing science recreation workshops: The ‘guerrilla’ of science communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 0(0), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2022.2123260.
García-Guerrero, Miguel, Michel-Sandoval, Bertha, Esparza-Manrique, Viridiana, Rodríguez-Pinedo, Amelia, Raudales-Hernández, Vianey, Pliego-Madero, Astrid, Bernal-Miranda, Dayan, González-Sánchez, David, Aranda-Gutiérrez, Roberto, Rosales-Valadez, Omar, Pérez-Padilla, Javier & Patiño-De-Santiago, Paulina (2019). Keeping the Flame Lit: The Value of the Long-Term Permanence of a Science Club. Science Communication, 41(1), 132-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018814845.
Garcia-Guerrero, Miguel, Ruiz-Villegas, María Fernanda, Báez-Hernández, Miriam Guadalupe, Cordero-Rodriguez, Azucena, Martinez-Rocha, César Augusto, Cerda-Hernández, Felipe de Jesús, González-Reyes, José Eduardo, Sotelo-Pulido, Francisco Javier & García-Rodríguez, Diana Elizabeth (2022). Manifiesto de la ciencia recreativa. Journal of Science Communication América Latina, 5(2), N01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/3.05020801.
Giddens, Anthony (1997). Las nuevas reglas del método sociológico. Amorrortu Editores.
Giroux, Henry A. (2001). Theory and Resistance in Education: Towards a Pedagogy for the Opposition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350458529.
Glerup, Cecilie & Horst, Maja (2014). Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.
Greene, Brian (2018). El universo elegante. Booket Paidós.
Guevara, Aline (2015). Visualizar lo invisible [Tesis de maestría]. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Habermas, Jürgen (1999). Teoría de la acción comunicativa I. Taurus.
Humm, Christian, Schrögel, Philipp & Leßmöllmann, Annette (2020). Feeling Left Out: Underserved Audiences in Science Communication. Media and Communication, 8(1), 164-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2480.
Imarraine, Soumaiya & Ortiz, Nicole (2025). From event enjoyment to career aspirations: How inclusive science engagement shapes participant perspectives. Journal of Science Communication, 24(5), N03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/147920250920070201.
Joly, Pierre-Benoit & Kaufmann, Alain (2008). Lost in Translation? The Need for ‘Upstream Engagement’ with Nanotechnology on Trial. Science as Culture, 17(3), 225-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430802280727.
Kim, Mijung & Dopico, Eduardo (2016). Science education through informal education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 439-445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9639-3.
Kirschner, Paul A., Sweller, John & Clark, Richard E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Larrión, Jósean (2017). Ignorancia, educación y propaganda: Claves para una crítica de la cultura científica y tecnológica. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia tecnología y sociedad, 12(34), 111-132. Recuperado de: https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/7.
Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2010). Modelos de comprensión pública: La política de la participación pública. Recuperado de: https://gredos.usal.es/handle/10366/120832.
Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2011). Changing Our Ideas. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(1), 17-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.554013.
Liu, Chi-Chang & Falk, John H. (2014). Serious Fun: Viewing Hobbyist Activities through a Learning Lens. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(4), 343-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.824130.
Lock, Simon (2011). Deficits and dialogues: Science communication and the public understading of science in the UK. In Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (17-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merton, Robert K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Negrete, Aquiles (2008). La divulgación de la ciencia a través de formas narrativas. México: Universal Nacional Autónoma de México. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4757.2967.
Nisbet, Matthew C. & Scheufele, Dietram A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041.
Olivé, León (2006). Los desafíos de la sociedad del conocimiento: Cultura científico-tecnológica, diversidad cultural y exclusión. Recuperado de: https://idus.us.es/xmlui/handle/11441/18283.
Osborne, Jonathan & Collins, Sue (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518.
Paas, Fred, Renkl, Alexander & Sweller, John (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.
Pastor Homs, María Inmaculada (2001). Orígenes y evolución del concepto de educación no formal. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 59(220), 525-544.
Sweller, John (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Swenson, Rebecca & Marson, Corissa (2024). Perceptions of Science Communication’s Domain, Practices, and Identity: What Concerns Members on the Peripheral Edge of a Community of Practice. Journal of Applied Communications, 108(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2498.
Toomey, Anne H. (2023). Why facts don’t change minds: Insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research. Biological Conservation, 278, 109886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109886.
UNESCO-UIS (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Recuperado de: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219109.
Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043.
Vosniadou, Stella (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.
Wenger, Etienne (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, Etienne (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Recuperado de: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736.
World Bank (1998). World Development Report 1998: Knowledge for Development (21st edition). Oxford University Press.
Zamarrón, Guadalupe (2006). De cultura científica y anexas. En Antonio Marín Ruiz et al. (Eds.), Universidad, comunicación y ciencia: Contrastes. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California y Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 CC Attribution 4.0
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todas os números de CTS e seus artigos individuais estão sob uma licença CC-BY.
Desde 2007, a CTS proporciona acesso livre, aberto e gratuito a todos seus conteúdos, incluídos o arquivo completo da edição quadrimestral e os diversos produtos apresentados na plataforma eletrônica. Esta decisão é baseada no entendimento de que fornecer acesso livre aos materiais publicados ajuda a ter uma maior e melhor troca de conhecimentos.
Por sua vez, em se tratando da edição quadrimestral, a revista permite aos repositórios institucionais e temáticos, bem como aos sites pessoais, o autoarquivo dos artigos na versão post-print ou versão editorial, logo após da publicação da versão definitiva de cada número e sob a condição de incorporar ao autoarquivo um link direcionado à fonte original.
