Leomar Christian G.

Nielo

June 16, 2015

BsDevCom 2A

Interpersonal Communication and Participatory

Development Communication
Assignment 1

What is interpersonal communication?

Wikipedia defines Interpersonal communication as the process that we use to communicate our
ideas, thoughts, and feelings to another person. Though I agree with this definition, I find it
vague. I define Interpersonal Communication as the process we use to build relationships with
others through communication by effectively doing the following:

Understanding the others situation in order to build a relationship with someone, we

need to be aware of where the other person is coming from.

Communicating in the right manner its not just what we say that matters but also the
tone we use and how we say it. Additionally, by considering our understanding of the other
person, we figure out how to best our intentions and ideas to that particular individual.

Influencing them to listen and/or take action as needed - People are more likely to listen
to us when we listen first to them and make efforts to establish common grounds. When we
approach any communication with the intention to create a win-win situation, thats when
we will maximize our influence on others and inspire them to action.
At the end of the day, the purpose of communication is to reach a common understanding, build
a better relationship, and/or agree on what to do next if action is required.
Interpersonal means that you treat a person as a unique individual as oppose to impersonal
meaning treating a person as an object or you respond to them based on their role in society. So
when you think of interpersonal communication think about you having a conversation with a
person, responding naturally and with great interest and responsiveness, showing emotions, body
language response and non-verbal responses. While impersonal is the opposite, its like the
relationship between you and your boss, you respond to him based on his role as your boss, if
that makes sense.
Four Principles of Interpersonal Communication
These principles underlie the workings in real life of interpersonal communication. They are
basic to communication. We can't ignore them
Interpersonal communication is inescapable
We can't not communicate. The very attempt not to communicate communicates something.
Through not only words, but through tone of voice and through gesture, posture, facial
expression, etc., we constantly communicate to those around us. Through these channels, we

constantly receive communication from others. Even when you sleep, you communicate.
Remember a basic principle of communication in general: people are not mind readers. Another
way to put this is: people judge you by your behavior, not your intent.
Interpersonal communication is irreversible
You can't really take back something once it has been said. The effect must inevitably remain.
Despite the instructions from a judge to a jury to "disregard that last statement the witness
made," the lawyer knows that it can't help but make an impression on the jury. A Russian proverb
says, "Once a word goes out of your mouth, you can never swallow it again."
Interpersonal communication is complicated
No form of communication is simple. Because of the number of variables involved, even simple
requests are extremely complex. Theorists note that whenever we communicate there are really
at least six "people" involved: 1) who you think you are; 2) who you think the other person is; 30
who you think the other person thinks you are; 4) who the other person thinks /she is; 5) who the
other person thinks you are; and 6) who the other person thinks you think s/he is.
We don't actually swap ideas, we swap symbols that stand for ideas. This also complicates
communication. Words (symbols) do not have inherent meaning; we simply use them in certain
ways, and no two people use the same word exactly alike.
OsmoWiio gives us some communication maxims similar to Murphy's law (OsmoWiio, Wiio's
Laws--and Some Others (Espoo, Finland: Welin-Goos, 1978):

If communication can fail, it will.

If a message can be understood in different ways, it will be understood in just that way
which does the most harm.

There is always somebody who knows better than you what you meant by your message.

The more communication there is, the more difficult it is for communication to succeed.

These tongue-in-cheek maxims are not real principles; they simply humorously remind us of the
difficulty of accurate communication. (See also A commentary of Wiio's laws by JukkaKorpela.)
Interpersonal communication is contextual
In other words, communication does not happen in isolation. There is:

Psychological context, which is who you are and what you bring to the interaction. Your
needs, desires, values, personality, etc., all form the psychological context. ("You" here
refers to both participants in the interaction.)

Relational context, which concerns your reactions to the other person--the "mix."

Situational context deals with the psycho-social "where" you are communicating. An
interaction that takes place in a classroom will be very different from one that takes place
in a bar.

Environmental context deals with the physical "where" you are communicating.
Furniture, location, noise level, temperature, season, time of day, all are examples of
factors in the environmental context.

Cultural context includes all the learned behaviors and rules that affect the interaction. If
you come from a culture (foreign or within your own country) where it is considered rude
to make long, direct eye contact, you will out of politeness avoid eye contact. If the other
person comes from a culture where long, direct eye contact signals trustworthiness, then
we have in the cultural context a basis for misunderstanding.

3 Most Common Myths about Interpersonal Communication

Its immensely difficult to improve your interpersonal communication if you still believe in some
common myths. Here are three of the most common myths:
1.

Myth #1: Focus just on the facts: Facts are important in a conversation but cant be the
only focus. Often we spend too much time figuring out what facts we want to communicate
and too little time on how we want to communicate them. Every person we speak to is
human with insecurities, ambitions, and biases. So remember the common adage: Its not
what you say, but how you make people feel that matters.
2.
Myth #2: If I am right, I can say so: Its never a good idea to kick someone when they
are down. If someone on your team makes a mistake, communicate that but focus the
conversation more on where to go from there and allow them to recover. If your customer
over-billed you, you still dont want to over-step in your communication. Approach the
situation gently and patiently. Its always better for the relationship if you give others the
benefit of the doubt.
3.
Myth #3: Sugar coat bad news: Bad news like a layoff message or a message to your
boss about a mistake you made at work is difficult to deliver. Its important to deliver the
message tactfully, but this is not the same as sugar coating. Sugar coating implies being not
direct or clear about the gravity of the message. While sugar coating a message may make
you feel more comfortable, it could confuse the other person or make the listener feel
patronized. Sincerity and a focus on moving forward will help more. Whatever happened
already happened. So be straightforward and focus on next steps.
https://bemycareercoach.com/soft-skills/communication-skills/interpersonal-communicationdefinition.html
http://www.pstcc.edu/facstaff/dking/interpr.htm

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130201104310AAMw1RR

What is development communication?

Development communication refers to the use of communication to facilitate social
development.[1] Development communication engages stakeholders and policy makers,
establishes conducive environments, assesses risks and opportunities and promotes information
exchanges to bring about positive social change via sustainable development.[2]Development
communication techniques include information dissemination and education, behavior change,
social marketing, social mobilization, media advocacy, communication for social change and
community participation.
Development communication has been labeled the "Fifth Theory of the Press," with "social
transformation and development," and "the fulfillment of basic needs" as its primary purposes.
[3]
Jamias articulated the philosophy of development communication which is anchored on three
main ideas, namely: purposive, value-laden and pragmatic.[4] Nora C. Quebral expanded the
definition, calling it "the art and science of human communication applied to the speedy
transformation of a country and the mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of
economic growth that makes possible greater social equality and the larger fulfilment of the
human potential."[5] Melcote and Steeves saw it as "emancipation communication", aimed at
combating injustice and oppression.[6]
Example: Id like to tell a simple story back in the 60s when the miracle rice was discovered.
That time, Secretary Rafael Salas and I went to Los Ba?os to find out what this miracle rice was
all about. We went from a doctor in biology, to a doctor in physiology, to so many other learned
people sitting around the table, all rice experts from different nations, to find out about miracle
rice, etc. I got a few mimeographed papers with some data on miracle rice. Then I said: Yeah,
but what is miracle rice? I stayed to interview the staff members for a couple of days.
Development Communication Theory
The underlying fact behind the genesis of this theory was that there can be no development
without communication. Under the four classical theories, capitalism was legitimized, but
under the Development communication theory, or Development Support Communication as it
is otherwise called, the media undertook the role of carrying out positive developmental
programmes, accepting restrictions and instructions from the State. The media subordinated
themselves to political, economic, social and cultural needs. Hence the stress on
"development communication" and "development journalism". There was tacit support from
the UNESCO for this theory. The weakness of this theory is that "development" is often
equated with government propaganda.

A theory of development communication

By Genaro V. Ong, Jr.
Managing Director of CFA, 1973-78
(From the book From the Village to the Medium, published by the Communication Foundation
for Asia: Manila, 1976)
THE IDEA BEHIND IT
Development communication is founded on an idea. The idea is, to put the modern media of
social communication at the service of development. That sounds simple enough, but it needs
some explaining.
ABOUT DEVELOPMENT
Development is the big thing these days. Everybodys talking about it. Big chunks of money are
spent in its name. But what is it?
Discussions of development are usually couched in economic terms. The economic goal is often
described in terms of an increase in the Gross National Product or GNP, the sum total of goods
and services produced by the country annually.
The goal has already been criticized as inadequate. One of the big problems of underdeveloped
countries is the maldistribution of available goods and services.
It doesnt help much to increase the size of the economic pie if 90 per cent of it still goes to
only 10 per cent of the people while the remaining 90 per cent of the people whose total number
increases more rapidly, continue to share in only 10 per cent of the wealth produced. Their
condition will not improve, but can only grow worse.
Responsible economists point out that the development goal should be not only to increase the
production of wealth but also to improve its distribution. In other words, an increase in GNP,
plus social justice, GNP alone wont do it.
Seen in this light, the problem immediately goes beyond mere economics. And the point we want
to make here is precisely that development means more than economic development.
Even plain economic development involves more than economics. It requires an improved social
organization. You need better social structures, relative peace and order, disciplined (and highly
motivated) people, a skilled labor force, a dedicated civil service, a minimum of graft and
corruption, a sensible tax structure, a wise government, etc.
Actually, for real economic development, you also need social justice, because this is what will
provide people with their motivation. If people can have a decent share of what they produce,
they will work harder.

When you talk about justice, however, youre talking about moral values, not just economics. In
other words, just to achieve economic development, you also need moral development.
To achieve economic development with social justice without which development wont make
sense to the common people you need to change a lot of attitudes. People have to add a moral
dimension to the way they operate their business, for instance. And workers may need a new
attitude towards work, since social justice also requires that workers do justice to their
employers, not only the other way around.
A TOTAL APPROACH
In short, development really means developing people. Then the people will change their
environment, including their social and economic environment.
We need a total human development approach, even if our immediate goal might be economic
development. The latter, of course, is not the end in itself, but only a means to enable human
beings to live more humanly. For a man may be rich and still live like a pig. Economic
development doesnt help him.
SOCIAL VERSUS MASS
Now, lets talk about social communication. First, the word social. We say social communication
advisedly. The more commonly accepted term is mass communication. In this book, the terms
are used almost interchangeably. But there is really a difference in connotation.
The Social Communicator is interested in mass communication not for its own sake, but as a
means of serving the development of people.
Mass communication is a technique of reaching a large number of people with a message, all at
once. Like many other techniques, it can be used for a-social, even anti-social, purposes. We are
for its social use.
One of the banes of modern mass production techniques despite their obvious benefits is
that they tend to dehumanize people and turn them into masses.
Mass communication, as commonly understood, tends to treat people in same way. Thus it is
often used as a tool for manipulating public opinion as if people were things to be
manipulated. There is also a certain cynicism about the masses in the entertainment media
industry.
People, however, do not develop by being manipulated. They develop by becoming conscious of
what they can be and what they can do and by being helped to be and do what they ought.

With people, the impetus for development must come from within themselves. But the stimulus
must come from without. Mass communication can, but does not necessarily, provide stimulus
for development. It must be programmed to do so.
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
Mass communication at the service of development or development communication
should seek to elicit a human, and ultimately a social response in the people whom it seeks to
serve. Serve, not mold or manipulate, as if people were putty in the hands of the communicator
A human response is one that is conscious and voluntary, not merely a conditioned reflex to the
controlled and sophisticated use of media. A communication that cultivates rather than smothers
this free human response is what were talking about.
Propaganda is a form of mass communication. Not all propaganda is reprehensible, but it is not
or at least not yet development communication.
Development communication is an educational process. It aims at developing social
consciousness, personal responsibility towards ones fellowmen, ones community and country.
In other words, a social conscience.Hence, the term conscientization, a sensitizing of the
conscience.
Development communication implies respect for the human person, respect for his intelligence
and his right to self-determination.
The role of mass communication is to help, not to take over or substitute for, his thinking. It
serves him by providing the facts on which to base a sound judgment, and the inspiration to carry
out his resolve.
Thus, development communication is a social process. Social because it seeks the human
response of people in society, not exactly to be compared with the reaction to stimulus of a mass
of ants in an anthill.
The term social communication, therefore, suggests the primacy of human values and human
dignity over mere technique, better than mass communication. It is the mark of human beings
to be social, whereas the concept of mass is derived from an obvious quality of brute matter.
ABOUT COMMUNICATION
Communication is an art. But not all practitioners of art, alas, are good communicators. Young
writers especially the creative literary types often equate expression with communication. It
is one thing to have something to say; another thing to express it. But it is still another thing to
express it in a way that will be accepted and understood by the specific audience to whom the
message is addressed.

Too much preoccupation with style and technique can be a hindrance to communication, not to
call attention to itself.
The task of communicator is to be like a clear glass window through which people can see (we
do not really create anything, we help people to see that is there); not a stained glass window that
invites attention to itself but blocks the view. This holds whether we communicate by writing,
photography, design or artwork, etc.
LISTENING TO THE AUDIENCE
The first concern of a communicator assuming he has something worthwhile to communicate
(which does not necessarily follow from knowing the techniques of communication) is to know
his audience.
You talk one way to a grade school child, another way to a university professor. You talk
differently to an adult who has not gone beyond grade school, than you would be one who has
been to college ( although, considering the quality of instruction in some colleges, the difference
might be very subtle).
You write one way for reading, another way for talking. Even for reading, there is a way of
writing for readability. Some writing is easy to read; others cause wrinkled brows, not
necessarily because the subject is difficult but because the language is abstruse. The language of
the man in the street is not the language of the academe.
As mass communicators, we are usually talking to the man on the street or in his home. We
must visualize him in his camiseta, watching TV after a hard days work, or his wife, listening to
the radio. The more intimately we know our audience, the better we can communicate. (In the
editorial offices of some popular magazines in Europe, they have pictures on the wall of the type
of people theyre writing for. They know the ages, range of income, educational attainment, their
vocabulary, the way they live, etc.)
Communication is not a one-way street. The first thing a communicator must do is listen to his
audience with a sharp ear; then there is chance that his audience might listen to him. All this is
elementary, but easily forgotten.
COMPETING FOR ATTENTION
The point is that in mass communication, nobody has to read what we write, or listen to our radio
programs, or watch our TV shows, or go to see our movie.
Its a highly competitive field. Our audience has a dozen other magazines or papers to choose
from, many other programs and shows competing for their attention. This is especially true in the
cities.

Unless we catch and hold our audience from the start, were lost. Restless hands reach for
something else to read, or turn dials to another station or channel. In other words, we dont
necessarily communicate because were in print or on the air. We must go on in there to win.
People dont have to read or listen to, or watch, development-oriented mass communications.
They generally turn to media for entertainment, not for lectures. Our problem is how to make
that entertainment more meaningful.
Entertainment can be escapist; it can be inane. Our task is to make entertainment contribute to
human improvement.
We have two ways of approaching our task. We can make entertainment educational. Or, if we
must use a more direct approach, we can make education entertaining. But we cant educate
without being interesting in one way or another. This is true even of classroom instruction.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION
Development communication is an educational process. It is a type of informal education, as
distinguished from the formal education of the classroom. In the long run, the reform of society
depends a great deal on what goes on in the classroom.
But for more immediate development needs, it is necessary to reach the decision-makers of
today. These are mostly out of school. They are out of school because they have finished
schooling, or have interrupted their schooling, or have never been to school. But it is they not
the children in the classrooms who make todays decisions. They decide whether there will be
another baby in the family. They decide whether to use fertilizer in their fields or not. They
decide what kind of food will be on the family table. They form the character of children more
than any school can do. Their tastes, their habits of saving and consumption can make or break
the economy.
A lot of preparation goes into the subjects taught in the classroom. A lot of preparation must go
into teaching informally through mass media.
As much as classroom teaching must be organized and programmed, informal teaching
through media must be organized and programmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_communication
http://cfamedia.org/main/?p=2417
http://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesen/mass/mass2.html

What is participatory development communication?

Participatory Development Communication (PDC) involves the use of communication processes,
techniques and media to engage stakeholders in social change. Stakeholders can include
individuals, groups and institutions involved in social change processes. PDC implies the use of
purposefully designed communication platforms and mechanisms to facilitate engagement in the
planning, monitoring and evaluation of change processes. Work in this area involves the design
and application of such mechanisms, and critical analysis of the institutional structures,
conditions and capacities required for participatory communication processes to result in more
sustainable development impacts. This thematic area explores:

Processes and capacities supporting participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation

for development
Communication functions and applications in conflict resolution
Communication functions and applications in institutional change
An example of the latter was provided by a group of villagers living on a mountain side
threatened by serious land-slides which were robbing the farmers of scarce arable land. The
solution learnt from neighbouring villages was the building of retaining walls with large
boulders-- back-breaking and long term project. Photographs of the progress of "rock-walling"
and the accumulating amounts of rich top-soil trapped by the walls convinced the villagers that
the walls must be built and motivated them to complete their daunting task.
Participatory development communication is the use of mass media and traditional, interpersonal means of communication that empowers communities to visualise aspirations and
discover solutions to their development problems and issues.
Participatory Communication "Participatory communication is the theory and practices of
communication used to involve people in the decision-making of the development process. It
intends to return to the roots of its meaning, which, similarly to the term community, originate
from the Latin word 'communis', i.e. common (Mody, 1991). Therefore, the purpose of
communication should be to make something common, or to share...meanings, perceptions,
worldviews or knowledge. In this context, sharing implies an equitable division of what is being
shared, which is why communication should almost be naturally associated with a balanced, twoway flow of information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_development_communication
http://www.uq.edu.au/ccsc/participatory-development-communication

Leomar Christian G. Nielo

June 16, 2015

BsDevCom 2A

Fundamentals of Science of Communication

Assignment 1

Definition of science and technology

Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about a particular field of study. According
to Science Made Simple, a leading website in scientific eduction, science helps us to gain
knowledge, through an organized system of observation and experimentation. This system is
used to describe different natural phenomena. The aforementioned description is that of pure
science, and biology, chemistry, physics and Earth science are the basic fields of pure science.
Technology can be defined as the products, tools and processes used to accomplish tasks in daily
life. According to Use of Technology, technology is the application of science to solve a problem.
Technology involves the application of engineering and applied sciences to solve the practical
problems of human lives. Technology is basically human knowledge that is used to create
products and artifacts with the help of innovative tools, systems and materials. Technology is
used for communication, manufacturing, learning, securing data and transportation; it is often a
consequence of science and engineering, but technology as a human activity precedes the other
two fields.
Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and
condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some
methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard
for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experimentation, measurement,
mathematics, and replication to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up
to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new
discoveries is called scientific research, and the people who carry out this research are called
scientists.[2][3] This article focuses on science in the more restricted sense, what is sometimes
called experimental science. Applied science, or engineering, is the practical application of
scientific knowledge.
Technology- Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, and crafts, or is
systems or methods of organization, or is a material product (such as clothing) of these things.
the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline.[1] The term can either be

applied generally or to specific areas: examples include "construction technology", "medical

technology", or "state-of-the-art technology".
http://www.ask.com/technology/meaning-science-technology-afc82b0b03a960eb
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100617043840AAY2ztU
History of Science and Technology
The history of Science and Technology (HST) is a field of history which examines how
humanity's understanding of the natural world (science) and ability to manipulate it (Technology)
have changed over the centuries. This academic discipline also studies the cultural, economic,
and political impacts of scientific innovation.
Histories of science were originally written by practicing and retired scientists, starting primarily
with William Whewell, as a way to communicate the virtues of science to the public. In the early
1930s, after a famous paper given by the Soviet historian Boris Hessen, was focused into looking
at the ways in which scientific practices were allied with the needs and motivations of their
context. After World War II, extensive resources were put into teaching and researching the
discipline, with the hopes that it would help the public better understand both Science and
Technology as they came to play an exceedingly prominent role in the world. In the 1960s,
especially in the wake of the work done by Thomas Kuhn, the discipline began to serve a very
different function, and began to be used as a way to critically examine the scientific enterprise.
At the present time it is often closely aligned with the field of Science studies.
In the Beginning There was Revolution
Lots of intro STS books (theres really only three of them 1, 2 and 3) say that STS began with
Thomas Kuhn although the new editions of these books (if and when they ever come out) will
probably revisit the work of Ludwik Fleck. Prior to Kuhn was what Sergio Sismondo describes
as the prehistory of STS and is largely composed of philosophers and social scientists
concerned with the nature of knowledge and the societal implications of handing off authority
and power to machines. Names commonly associated with this history include Robert Merton,
Michael Polanyi, Lewis Mumford, and more well known thinkers who had a lot to say about
science and/or technology like Martin Heidegger, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Pytor Kropotkin.
Kuhns book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, published in 1962 argued that scientific
progress wasnt only driven by the discovery of facts: science is a social process that fluctuates
between periods of normal science and revolution. During periods of normal science every
scientist subscribes to a particular paradigm and all work seeks to refine and elaborate the basic
premises of the paradigm. Revolution occurs when a sizeable contingent of scientist challenge
the paradigm itself. The revolution, according to Kuhn, isnt resolved and normal science
reinstated until the adherents to the old paradigm die off or become so marginalized that they are
incapable of marshaling resources to continue their research. Even more controversial was the
idea that these revolutions didnt necessarily produce better accounts of the natural world, just

different ones. Sometimes the newer paradigms were able to explain more, or they afforded new
applications, but most importantly they structured who could do science and lay claim to how
the world works.
Ludwik Fleck took a slightly different approach, describing something closer to Foucaults
episteme. Fleck taught that various thought collectives existed at any one time and vied for
adherents through persuasive demonstrations and publications of experiments and remained
coherent through a common vocabulary and method. Unlike Kuhn, which still has an essence of
linearity to it (normal science -> revolution -> new normal science new revolution), Fleck
showed that scientific discovery was always working in multiple directions with each having
relatively equal chances of achieving dominance.
Several turns to Technology, Social Construction, Representation, and the Nonmodern
Fleck was writing in the 20s and 30s up until his eventual incarceration in a Nazi concentration
camp (where he was forced to work on and eventually invented a typhus vaccine in a German
army hospital through experimentation on prisoners). He survived but his work on epistemology
in this later period is not as widely cited. Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions was
originally published in 1962 and, while the discipline has moved and improved beyond the
theory of Kuhnian revolutions, it is still a foundational text in STS.
The STS work of the 70s and 80s laid the groundwork for the established field it is today. Much
of what was written in this time was the result of a symbiotic relationship between counterculture
and critical thought applied to science and technology. Langdon WinnersAutonomous
Technology (1977), Evelyn Fox Kellers Reflections on Gender and Science (1985) and Bruno
Latour and Steve Woolgars Laboratory Life (1979) are indicative of this period of writing.
These texts, along with dozens of articles, essays, and books by (in no particular order) Donald
MacKenzie, Sal Restivo, David Noble, Sandra Harding, Donna Haraway, Andrew Pickering,
Michel Callon, WiebeBijker, Thomas Hughes, and Trevor Pinch began to develop a coherent
rebuttal to the dominant idea that technologies are apolitical tools and science merely observes
and records objective facts.
Winners two books in this period aforementioned Autonomous Technologies and his 1986
bookThe Whale and the Reactor built off of previous work by Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford
and showed that technological artifacts have their own politics. (I summarize that
argument here.) Kellers work began one of STSs longest-standing projects: revealing how the
history of science and technology buries the contributions of women and even defines
contributions to science as activities typically performed by men. Latour and Woolgars
ethnography of the Jonas Salk laboratory was the first study to use the tools of anthropology on a
thoroughly modern field site. This launched a long-standing tradition of seeing scientific objects
and theoretical models as cultural artifacts as well.
By the end of the 80s and into the first half of the 90s several major projects had solidified into
recognizable schools of thought and theories: The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) and
Social Construction of Technology (SCoT) continued where Fleck left off and produced dense
and elaborate accounts of technological invention and scientific discovery. Everything from the

design of 13th century Portuguese ships of war (Law, 1987) to Bakelite plastic and fluorescent
lighting (Bijker 1997) was gone over with a fine tooth comb. These authors were after two very
big ideas. The first was that all science and technology was socially constructed, meaning that
everything could have been otherwise but wasnt due to historical, social, and cultural factors.
Second, these authors wanted to know what made a technology stabilize into the general form
we come to recognize. This usually involved investigating the working definitions of
technoscientific concepts like accuracy and precision. How accurate is accurate enough? Does
accuracy work the same way in nuclear missile design and furniture construction? The answers
were always extremely qualified and usually involved the phrase, its more complicated than
that.
Latour and Woolgars ethnography of a laboratory began a tradition of studying the scientific
process and how it came to develop representations of our world. Scientific instruments, Latour
and Woolgar argued, inscribed invisible forces onto tangible and exchangeable documents and it
was this process of inscription that was the over-looked but crucial process (along with high
social standing) that made it possible to form arguments about the world. A sizeable portion of
STS literature is devoted to articulating just how technoscientific objects mediate and represent
the world around us. Obviously theres a lot of overlap here with the work founded by Winner,
who reminds us that this representation can have political consequences and/or motivations.
Bruno Latour, probably one of the most cited STS scholars, produced several foundational texts
about representation, social constructivism, and the politics of technology but his most popular
work sought to dismantle the nature/society dualism all-together. His book We Have Never Been
Modern (1993) argued that modernity, more than anything else, relied on a conceptual separation
between knowledge pertaining to nature and society. That is, the way we construct causality and
ontology was unnecessarily bifurcated by a deeply and widely held belief that the laws governing
society and nature were completely different. The titular argument of the book was a massive
critique of the post-modern project as well, since the collapsing of boundaries was predicated on
those boundaries beginning in the first place.
Only recently [PDF] has Latour tried to articulate what we have been this whole time, if not
modern. In the mean time, he described the nonmodern as an infinitely complex network of
human and nonhuman actors (or actants) that could be studied through his well-known ActorNetwork theory developed with fellow ANT adherents Michel Callon and John Law. There are
lots of good critiques of ANT, most of which point out that even if the fundamental ontology
between society and nature is arbitrary, the way ANT repositions actors relationships to oneanother erases or obscures inequalities of power among humans.
Cyborgs, The Public, and Making Things
Of course, another major project of 90s STS was Donna Haraways work and what is probably
her best-known Cyborg Manifesto which was actually first written almost 10 years before the
version everyone cites in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women (1990). The manifesto cites the later
20th centurys breakdown of barriers between humans, animals, machines, physical and
nonphysical phenomena as a reason to de-center identity in favor of affinity. It was specifically a
call for socialist feminists to reassess their identity-centered politics and recognize the power of

affinities. The thesis is, and this is where this history definitely becomes my telling, does
essentially the same work that Latour does. It is, at least for me, what We Have Never Been
Modern should have been, at least in terms of its applicability to race, class and gender politics.
(More on Latours approach to power here.)
Another boundary STS interrogates is that of lay and expert knowledge. Going as far back as the
70s, in some Scandinavian work (See Bdkers work cited below) STS scholars have sought to
understand what counts as legitimate science and what is considered either quackery or too
amateur to be reproducible or generalizable. Much of this work relies on case studies of scientific
controversy surrounding environmental disasters and faulty technologies. Popular topics in this
area include: publics understanding of scientific facts and processes, legitimacy to make
scientific claims or show scientific proof, the diagnostic process (e.g. why something works or
doesnt work and how working is defined in the first place), and the boundary formation of
disciplines.
Its also worth point out here that theres a smaller but parallel track of STS (that I really like) that
dates back to SCoT and SSK that focuses more on the microsociology of performing science
instead of focusing on the representational aspects of science. In other words, authors like
Andrew Pickering look at what decisions scientists and engineers make in the moment so as to
better understand how science works as a practice, not a profession or a collection of facts.
This sort of work is getting particularly useful now that STS scholars have also taken it upon
themselves to collaborate with scientist and engineers themselves and engage in the making
process. The last decade or so has seen a massive increase in methods and frameworks that help
engineers and scientists develop a kind of sociological imagination while at the same time give
social scientists a much richer picture of how humans think with and through material objects.
The future of STS, if current publications are any indication of future progress, will be in making
as well as writing. Critical Making (Matt Ratto), Reflective Design (Phoebe Sengers),
Adversarial Design (Carl DiSalvo), Feminist Technologies (Linda Layne), Critical Technical
Practice (Phil Agre), Appropriate Design (Dean Nieusma), and the work of Public Lab (Sarah
Wylie) are interventions meant to democratize science and engineering or in some other way
imbue these practices with the kinds of concerns and problems that have been the subject of the
social sciences for over a century.

http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2014/07/30/an-extremely-brief-history-of-sciencetechnology-studies/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology

Role of a science for a communicator

Science can help communicator by providing a stronger understanding of current research, its
trials, tribulations and, most importantly, its wider relevance to society. Relevance builds support
and at a practical level such support leads to better funding. Knowingly or not, everyone in the
country has a vested interest in the direction research moves in. Good science communication
will make people aware of this.
It can help communicators by: Excellent science communication can capture the imagination:
sparking meaningful debate and discussion that grants science a stronger presence in our society.
We see this already with the rise of the celebrity scientist and the growing success of science
festivals. While some of the more venerable academics I know cringe at the term popular
science it has brought our research into the public sphere in a way unseen since the moon
landings. The uncomfortable realisation that I cannot look at a starry sky without seeing a Brian
Cox shaped constellation has helped to convince me of this.
At its most aspirational, science communication has the potential to kick start a stronger fusion
of public and scientific values, locking our field into the public conscious in a manner similar to
the omnipresent tech giants Google and Apple. This will certainly lead to better scientists,
research, funding and hopefully better science articles in the newspapers. Change such as this
cannot happen overnight. It would require a radical shift in attitudes towards science
communication. Researchers would need the capability and the willingness to explain their work
to others and there must be a push to make science consistently open and accessible to the public.
Then, at the very least, science and society could regain the respect theyre currently lacking for
each other.
Lastly, science can help communicator because it deals with an issue that is important not only,
or even mainly, for the scientific community but also for the nation as a whole and for each
individual within it. More than ever, people need some understanding of science, whether they
are involved in decision-making at a national or local level, in managing industrial companies,
in skilled or semi-skilled employment, in voting as private citizens or in making a wide range of
personal decisions.
http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/02/27/why-we-need-science-communication

http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/09/04/the-importance-of-science-communication

Definition/elaborate of professional scientific communication

Science communication generally refers to public communication presenting science-related
topics to non-experts. This often involves professional scientists (called "outreach" or
"popularization"), but has also evolved into a professional field in its own right. It
includes scienceexhibitions, journalism, policy or media production.
Science communication can aim to generate support for scientific research or study, or to
inform decision making, including political andethical thinking. There is increasing emphasis on
explaining methods rather than simply findings of science. This may be especially critical in
addressing scientific misinformation, which spreads easily because it is not subject to the
constraints of scientific method.[1][2][3][4]
Science communicators can
use entertainment and persuasion including humor, storytelling and metaphors.[3][4] Scientists can
be trained in some of the techniques used by actors to improve their communication.[5]
Science communication can also simply describe communication between scientists (e.g.
through scientific journals), as well as between non-scientists.

Science communication has the potential to kick start a stronger fusion of public and scientific
values, locking our field into the public conscious in a manner similar to the omnipresent tech
giants Google and Apple. This will certainly lead to better scientists, research, funding and
hopefully better science articles in the newspapers. Change such as this cannot happen overnight.
It would require a radical shift in attitudes towards science communication. Researchers would
need the capability and the willingness to explain their work to others and there must be a push
to make science consistently open and accessible to the public. Then, at the very least, science
and society could regain the respect theyre currently lacking for each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/09/04/the-importance-of-science-communication

Presidency an unforgiving position, says Duterte

By Ben O. Tesiorna, for CNN Philippines
Updated 16:05 PM PHT Sun, June 7, 2015

Davao City (CNN Philippines) Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte once again denied plans
of running for president in the 2016 elections, saying the presidency is an unforgiving position.
In a statement made over his weekly TV program Sunday (June 7), Duterte said all he wants to
do right now is travel the world and enjoy the remaining years of his life.
He added the presidency is almost like an assurance that a person will go to prison after his term,
referring to former Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who were jailed
due to plunder charges, which is a non-bailable offense in the Philippines.
Duterte likewise denied that he was keen on getting Batangas Gov. Vilma Santons as his running
mate because he is not gunning for the top position.

North Cotabato Gov. Emmanuel Piol earlier bared that during a recent trip to Davao with the
feisty mayor, Duterte spoke about the possibiity of running for office in 2016 and who his dream
running mate would be.
He said it took Duterte sometime to answer the question but when he did, he candidly replied, "It
cant be Grace Poe because I think she has decided to run for President. Vilma Santos would be a
good choice."
It was also during the said trip that Duterte intimated his cabinet 'wish list,' which include the
following:

former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro (Defense)

former Agriculture Secretary Carlos "Sonny" Dominguez III (Finance)

former Interior Secretary Rafael Alunan III (Interior and Local Government)

lawyer Vitaliano Aguirre (Justice)

Camarines Sur Rep. Leni Robredo (Social Welfare)

Duterte confirmed the conversation with Piol, but clarified it was merely just small talk and
nothing serious.

Duterte's son clarifies post referring to his father as 'president'

By Rosette Adel (philstar.com) | Updated June 11, 2015 - 6:49pm

MANILA, Philippines Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Rody Dutertes son ViceMayor Paolo "Pulong" Duterte on Wednesday said he wants to get spared from
politics and issues on his fathers presidential candidacy.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday, the younger Duterte said that he wants to be
spared from political issues following reactions on his status post where he referred
to his father as his president.
Spare me from all these. I am only his son. I'm not his campaign manager or
political strategist, he said.

The younger Duterte clarified that he only pertained to his father as his president
since he listened to his forum on federalism and found the mayor fitting as a
president.
In a status I posted few days ago I referred to Mayor Rody Duterte as "my
President". I referred to him as such because I listened to his forum on federalism
and deep in my heart and personally the mayor can be my president, he said in his
statement on Facebook.
The younger Duterte also claimed that the media took his post out of context.

Lacson on tandem with Duterte: Baka umusok kami

ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 06/12/2015 1:26 PM | Updated as of 06/12/2015 4:07 PM
MANILA Former Senator Panfilo Lacson is cool to the idea of running with Davao City Mayor
Rodrigo Duterte in the 2016 elections.
Speaking to dzMM, Lacson said a tandem with Duterte may not be ideal since they the have the
same core competence.

''[Una] baka umusok kaming dalawa...Pangalawa, eh parang isa lang ang dimension, ang core
competence namin, parang nalilinya sa iisang aspeto lamang ito ay sa larangan ng peace and
order,'' he said.
''Baka sa ibang aspeto, eh baka magkaroon ng maraming kwestyon."
Both Lacson and Duterte have built a reputation of taking a hardline stance against criminality.
Lacson is being credited for the reforms he pushed while he was chief of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) under the Estrada administration.
Duterte, on the other hand, has managed to make Davao City one of the most peaceful cities in
the world, although some groups say this came at the expense of respect for human rights.
Despite the growing calls for him to run for president, Duterte has repeatedly rejected the idea of
running for president.
Lacson, meanwhile, said one factor holding him back from launching another presidential bid is
his low score in the most recent presidential preference surveys.
''Kasi ang tinitignan ko lang sa ngayon eh kung tataas ang numbers ko. Kung tataas
magkakaroon ng significant improvement, then I will continue pursuing ang aking advocacy,'' he
said.
Lacson said running once again for a Senate seat is the most viable option for him. The former
senator emerged on top of the latest Pulse Asia survey on potential Senate bets in the 2016
elections.
FIX BUREAUCRACY
Lacson said in case he pushes through with his presidential bid, he would prioritize cleaning up
the bureaucracy.
He said the government leadership must show no tolerance to incompetence and corruption in
the bureaucracy because government agencies deal directly with the people.
''Ang number 1 problem of our country is bad government. Walang ibang paraan para maicorrect ang problema ng bansa, kung 'di i-correct ang bad government,'' he said.
''Kung ang 1.5 million Filipinos employed by government eh masama ang ginagawa, what can
you expect from the 100 million Filipinos?"
The former senator said while he acknowledges his poor showing in the recent pre-election
surveys, he still aspires to show his supporters and the public that he can serve the country well.

''I want to make a difference. I want to show our people - I want to prove to myself - that I can do
it and turn things around and make a difference,'' he said.
''Nakita ko ang kakayanan ko nung namuno ako sa PNP. Gusto ko namang subukan sa isang
mataas na antas ng paglilingkod, iyun ang nasasa loob ko."