Li Huiqin

                                                                                       School of Journalism and Communication

Abstract: Based on the concept of "communication is participation", this study analyzes the public's discourse and the quality of consultation on scientific issues by using the content analysis method, and focuses on the characteristics of public participation in science communication in social media. Furthermore, the complexity and globality of climate change are taken into consideration, and the application and dilemma of public engagement with science model, which is the mainstream mode of science communication at present, is analyzed, so as to provide theoretical reflection and suggestions for public participation in global scientific issues in the era of social media. On the basis of sorting out the change in the mode of science communication, 841 data samples were obtained from the discussion of "carbon neutrality" in Zhihu community. In this study, six kinds of discourse and three kinds of standpoints are summarized. Among the public in active position, survivalist discourse and democratic practical discourse account for the largest proportion, which is most conducive to the formation of joint forces to deal with climate change. At the macro level, this position emphasizes the idea of a community with a shared future for mankind (earth), and at the micro level, it calls for the public to take the responsibility and encourages individuals to reduce carbon emissions from their daily life. The public in the critical position mainly adopts science communication discourse and administrative rational discourse, which is able to dissolve the grandiosity of climate change issues. It can not only bring scientific knowledge into specific social contexts, but also reflect on the specificity of scientific policies at different levels. From the standpoint of skeptics, economic rational discourse and political discourse are more popular, providing the main discourse resources for refusing to compromise. Among them, the public who support the promotion of carbon neutrality are mainly concerned about national interests, while the public who question carbon neutrality are either concerned about personal interests or regard it as a conspiracy of western countries. Different standpoints and different quality of consultation bring new thinking on the theoretical level of public engagement with science model. First of all, in the public dialogue, although the direct experience from daily life becomes the knowledge to understand carbon neutrality, the diversified local knowledge is difficult to avoid subjectivity, and the public engagement with science model needs to seek a balance between scientific knowledge and local knowledge. Secondly, social media provides a convenient way for the public to express their demands. The public makes judgments about carbon neutrality based on the perception of risk. However, when the individual narrative becomes the basis of argument, the uncertainty of sophisticated argumentation and viewpoint negotiation is increased, and the exchange of views at a low level of argument becomes an obstacle to consensus formation. So, public engagement with science model should not be completely separated from deficit model. In addition, nationalist discourse is a major impediment to joining forces to address climate change in the carbon neutrality debate. In the face of global scientific issues, especially climate change, which calls for global joint action, the idea of a community with a shared future for mankind can provide inspiration for measuring the effectiveness of public engagement.

Read the full article here:       【气候变化】气候变化背景下公众参与科学传播的转向与困境.pdf