يعرض 1 - 10 نتائج من 17 نتيجة بحث عن '"Communication in science."', وقت الاستعلام: 1.67s تنقيح النتائج
  1. 1
  2. 2

    المؤلفون: Carlos Maciá-Barber

    المصدر: Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol 18 (2013): Número especial (octubre): La comunicación en la profesión y en la universidad de hoy; 799-811
    Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 18 (2013): Número especial (octubre): La comunicación en la profesión y en la universidad de hoy; 799-811
    Revistas Científicas Complutenses
    Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
    Historia y Comunicación Social, Vol 18 (2014)

    وصف الملف: application/pdf

  3. 3

    المؤلفون: Maciá-Barber, Carlos

    المصدر: Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 18 (2013): Número especial (octubre): La comunicación en la profesión y en la universidad de hoy; 799-811
    Revistas Científicas Complutenses
    Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)

    وصف الملف: application/pdf

  4. 4
  5. 5

    المؤلفون: García Nieto, María Teresa

    المصدر: Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico; Vol. 19 (2013): Número especial (abril): La enseñanza de la Comunicación en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (EEES); 783-792
    Revistas Científicas Complutenses
    Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)

    وصف الملف: application/pdf

  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
    مورد إلكتروني

    عناروين إضافية: El papel de la experiencia histórica y la confianza en la comunicación de tecnologías emergentes: el caso de las nanotecnologías

    المصدر: Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 22 No. 1 (2017); 221-232; Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 22 Núm. 1 (2017); 221-232; 1988-3056; 1137-0734

    URL: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909
    https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909/50674
    https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909/50674
    *ref*/Althusser, L. (2008). On Ideology. London, UK: Verso.
    *ref*/Avis, R. (1981). Social and Technical Relations: The Case of Further Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2(2), 145–161. Tomado de http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/1393015?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    *ref*/Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2012). Nanotechnology: a new regime for the public in science? Scientiae Studia, 10(SPE), 85–94. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662012000500005
    *ref*/Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., … Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
    *ref*/Calvo, M. (1997). Objetivos de la divulgación de la ciencia. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación Chasqui, (60), 38–42. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4337427
    *ref*/Digangi, J. (2003, September). US intervention in EU Chemical Policy. Environmental Health Fund. Disponible en http://docplayer.net/2967590-Us-intervention-in-eu-chemical-policy.html
    *ref*/Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319. http://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782329
    *ref*/EEA (2002). Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. European Environmental Agency. Disponible en http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf
    *ref*/EEA (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. European Environmental Agency. EEA Report No 1/2013. Disponible en http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-2-full-report/late-lessons-from-early-warnings
    *ref*/Einsiedel, E. (2008). Public participation and dialogue. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 172–184). London; New York: Routledge.
    *ref*/Epstein, S. (1998). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge (Reprint). Berkeley, Cal.: Univ. of California Press.
    *ref*/Falkner, R., & Jaspers, N. (2012). Regulating Nanotechnology. Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), 30–55. Disponible en http://www.robertfalkner.org/s/Falkner_Jaspers_2012_Regulating_Nanotechnologies_final_ms.pdf
    *ref*/Foladori, G., & Invernizzi, N. (2008). The workers push to democratize nanotechnology. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. UK: Springer.
    *ref*/Foladori, G., & Invernizzi, N. (2016). La regulación de las nanotecnologías: una mirada desde las diferencias EUA-UE. Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia, 4(2), 8–20. http://doi.org/10.3395/2317-269x.00726
    *ref*/Freudenburg, W. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242(4875), 44–49. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.3175635
    *ref*/García Guerrero, M., & Foladori, G. (2015). Divulgación de Ciencia y Tecnología: los límites del enfoque técnico en las nanotecnologías. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias - 2015, 12 (3) - pp. 508-519. Disponible en http://rodin.uca.es:80/xmlui/handle/10498/17605
    *ref*/Golan, T. (2004). Laws of men and laws of nature: the history of scientific expert testimony in England and America. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    *ref*/Gorz, A. (1976). The Division of Labour: The Labour Process and Class-struggle in Modern Capitalism. BRILL.
    *ref*/Hilgartner, S. (1990). The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539. http://doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006
    *ref*/Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). Science and the media. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies ed. by Sheila Jasanoff et al. (London: Sage) (pp. 343–360).
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). What Counts as a Social and Ethical Issue in Nanotechnology? HYLE-International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5–18. Disponible en http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/11-1/lewenstein.htm
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (2016). Expertise, democracy and science communication. Presented at the 14th Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Istanbul.
    *ref*/Marx, K. (1993). Production, consumption, distribution, exchange (circulation). In M. Nicolaus (Trans.), Grundrisse: foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft) (23. print). London, England: Penguin Books.
    *ref*/Marx, K. (2011). Capital, Volume One: A Critique of Political Economy. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.
    *ref*/Myers, G. (2003). Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265–279. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006
    *ref*/Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767– 1778. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
    *ref*/Olivé, L. (2007). La ciencia y la tecnología en la sociedad del conocimiento. Fondo de Cultura Economica.
    *ref*/Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988). Choosing sides: unions and the team concept. Boston: South End Press.
    *ref*/Priest, S. (2012). Nanotechnology and the public: risk perception and risk communication. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    *ref*/Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766. http://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00353
    *ref*/Sánchez Vázquez, A. (1984). La ideología de la “neutralidad ideológica” en ciencias sociales. In Ensayos marxistas sobre filosofía e ideología (pp. 139–164). México D.F.: Océano
    *ref*/Scheufele, D. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement_4), 13585–13592. http://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
    *ref*/Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies ed. by Sheila Jasanoff et al. (London: Sage) (pp. 361–388).
    *ref*/Wynne, B. (1999). Knowledges in context. In Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels (OU Reader) (pp. 4–13). Routledge.

  9. 9
    مورد إلكتروني

    عناروين إضافية: El papel de la experiencia histórica y la confianza en la comunicación de tecnologías emergentes: el caso de las nanotecnologías

    المصدر: Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 22 No. 1 (2017); 221-232; Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 22 Núm. 1 (2017); 221-232; 1988-3056; 1137-0734

    URL: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909
    https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909/50674
    https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/view/55909/50674
    *ref*/Althusser, L. (2008). On Ideology. London, UK: Verso.
    *ref*/Avis, R. (1981). Social and Technical Relations: The Case of Further Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2(2), 145–161. Tomado de http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/1393015?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    *ref*/Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2012). Nanotechnology: a new regime for the public in science? Scientiae Studia, 10(SPE), 85–94. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662012000500005
    *ref*/Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., … Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
    *ref*/Calvo, M. (1997). Objetivos de la divulgación de la ciencia. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación Chasqui, (60), 38–42. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4337427
    *ref*/Digangi, J. (2003, September). US intervention in EU Chemical Policy. Environmental Health Fund. Disponible en http://docplayer.net/2967590-Us-intervention-in-eu-chemical-policy.html
    *ref*/Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319. http://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782329
    *ref*/EEA (2002). Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. European Environmental Agency. Disponible en http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf
    *ref*/EEA (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. European Environmental Agency. EEA Report No 1/2013. Disponible en http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-2-full-report/late-lessons-from-early-warnings
    *ref*/Einsiedel, E. (2008). Public participation and dialogue. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 172–184). London; New York: Routledge.
    *ref*/Epstein, S. (1998). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge (Reprint). Berkeley, Cal.: Univ. of California Press.
    *ref*/Falkner, R., & Jaspers, N. (2012). Regulating Nanotechnology. Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), 30–55. Disponible en http://www.robertfalkner.org/s/Falkner_Jaspers_2012_Regulating_Nanotechnologies_final_ms.pdf
    *ref*/Foladori, G., & Invernizzi, N. (2008). The workers push to democratize nanotechnology. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. UK: Springer.
    *ref*/Foladori, G., & Invernizzi, N. (2016). La regulación de las nanotecnologías: una mirada desde las diferencias EUA-UE. Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia, 4(2), 8–20. http://doi.org/10.3395/2317-269x.00726
    *ref*/Freudenburg, W. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242(4875), 44–49. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.3175635
    *ref*/García Guerrero, M., & Foladori, G. (2015). Divulgación de Ciencia y Tecnología: los límites del enfoque técnico en las nanotecnologías. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias - 2015, 12 (3) - pp. 508-519. Disponible en http://rodin.uca.es:80/xmlui/handle/10498/17605
    *ref*/Golan, T. (2004). Laws of men and laws of nature: the history of scientific expert testimony in England and America. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    *ref*/Gorz, A. (1976). The Division of Labour: The Labour Process and Class-struggle in Modern Capitalism. BRILL.
    *ref*/Hilgartner, S. (1990). The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539. http://doi.org/10.1177/030631290020003006
    *ref*/Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). Science and the media. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies ed. by Sheila Jasanoff et al. (London: Sage) (pp. 343–360).
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). What Counts as a Social and Ethical Issue in Nanotechnology? HYLE-International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5–18. Disponible en http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/11-1/lewenstein.htm
    *ref*/Lewenstein, B. V. (2016). Expertise, democracy and science communication. Presented at the 14th Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Istanbul.
    *ref*/Marx, K. (1993). Production, consumption, distribution, exchange (circulation). In M. Nicolaus (Trans.), Grundrisse: foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft) (23. print). London, England: Penguin Books.
    *ref*/Marx, K. (2011). Capital, Volume One: A Critique of Political Economy. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.
    *ref*/Myers, G. (2003). Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265–279. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006
    *ref*/Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767– 1778. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
    *ref*/Olivé, L. (2007). La ciencia y la tecnología en la sociedad del conocimiento. Fondo de Cultura Economica.
    *ref*/Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988). Choosing sides: unions and the team concept. Boston: South End Press.
    *ref*/Priest, S. (2012). Nanotechnology and the public: risk perception and risk communication. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    *ref*/Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766. http://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00353
    *ref*/Sánchez Vázquez, A. (1984). La ideología de la “neutralidad ideológica” en ciencias sociales. In Ensayos marxistas sobre filosofía e ideología (pp. 139–164). México D.F.: Océano
    *ref*/Scheufele, D. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement_4), 13585–13592. http://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
    *ref*/Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies ed. by Sheila Jasanoff et al. (London: Sage) (pp. 361–388).
    *ref*/Wynne, B. (1999). Knowledges in context. In Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels (OU Reader) (pp. 4–13). Routledge.

  10. 10
    مورد إلكتروني

    عناروين إضافية: Periodismo y prehistoria: retos éticos en la comunicación social de la ciencia

    المصدر: Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 18 (2013): Número especial (octubre): La comunicación en la profesión y en la universidad de hoy; 799-811; Historia y Comunicación Social; Vol. 18 (2013): Número especial (octubre): La comunicación en la profesión y en la universidad de hoy; 799-811; 1988-3056; 1137-0734