Cargando…

Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions

‘Science’ is a proportionately small but recurring constituent in the rhetorical lexicon of political leaders. To evaluate the use of science-related content relative to other themes in political communications, we undertake a statistical analysis of keywords in U.S. Presidential State of the Union...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quigley, Mark, Silver, Jeremy D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9389511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35999890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x
_version_ 1784770475963973632
author Quigley, Mark
Silver, Jeremy D.
author_facet Quigley, Mark
Silver, Jeremy D.
author_sort Quigley, Mark
collection PubMed
description ‘Science’ is a proportionately small but recurring constituent in the rhetorical lexicon of political leaders. To evaluate the use of science-related content relative to other themes in political communications, we undertake a statistical analysis of keywords in U.S. Presidential State of the Union (SOTU) addresses and Presidential Budget Messages (PBM) from Truman (1947) to Trump (2020). Hierarchical clustering and correlation analyses reveal proximate affinities between ‘science’ and ‘research’, ‘space’, ‘technology’, ‘education’, and ‘climate’. The keywords that are least correlated with ‘science’ relate to fiscal (‘inflation’, ‘tax’) and conflict-related themes (‘security’, ‘war’, ‘terror’). The most ubiquitous and frequently used keywords are ‘economy’ and ‘tax’. Science-related keywords are used in a positive (promotional) rhetorical context and thus their proportionality in SOTU and PBM corpora is used to define fields of science advocacy (public perception advocacy, funding advocacy, advocacy) for each president. Monte Carlo simulations and randomized sampling of three elements: language (relative frequency of usage of science-related keywords), funding (proposed funding and allocated discretionary funding of science agencies), and actions (e.g. expediency of science advisor appointments, (dis-) establishment of science agencies) are used to generate a science advocacy score (SAS) for each president. The SAS is compared with independent survey-based measures of political popularity. A myriad of political, contextual, and other factors may contribute to lexical choices, policy, and funding actions. Within this complex environment ‘science’ may have political currency under certain circumstances, particularly where public and political perceptions of the value of science to contribute to matters of priority align. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9389511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93895112022-08-19 Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions Quigley, Mark Silver, Jeremy D. Environ Syst Decis Article ‘Science’ is a proportionately small but recurring constituent in the rhetorical lexicon of political leaders. To evaluate the use of science-related content relative to other themes in political communications, we undertake a statistical analysis of keywords in U.S. Presidential State of the Union (SOTU) addresses and Presidential Budget Messages (PBM) from Truman (1947) to Trump (2020). Hierarchical clustering and correlation analyses reveal proximate affinities between ‘science’ and ‘research’, ‘space’, ‘technology’, ‘education’, and ‘climate’. The keywords that are least correlated with ‘science’ relate to fiscal (‘inflation’, ‘tax’) and conflict-related themes (‘security’, ‘war’, ‘terror’). The most ubiquitous and frequently used keywords are ‘economy’ and ‘tax’. Science-related keywords are used in a positive (promotional) rhetorical context and thus their proportionality in SOTU and PBM corpora is used to define fields of science advocacy (public perception advocacy, funding advocacy, advocacy) for each president. Monte Carlo simulations and randomized sampling of three elements: language (relative frequency of usage of science-related keywords), funding (proposed funding and allocated discretionary funding of science agencies), and actions (e.g. expediency of science advisor appointments, (dis-) establishment of science agencies) are used to generate a science advocacy score (SAS) for each president. The SAS is compared with independent survey-based measures of political popularity. A myriad of political, contextual, and other factors may contribute to lexical choices, policy, and funding actions. Within this complex environment ‘science’ may have political currency under certain circumstances, particularly where public and political perceptions of the value of science to contribute to matters of priority align. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x. Springer US 2022-08-19 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9389511/ /pubmed/35999890 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Quigley, Mark
Silver, Jeremy D.
Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title_full Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title_fullStr Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title_full_unstemmed Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title_short Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
title_sort science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9389511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35999890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09875-x
work_keys_str_mv AT quigleymark scienceadvocacyinpoliticalrhetoricandactions
AT silverjeremyd scienceadvocacyinpoliticalrhetoricandactions