Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 13:2 (2023) ► pp.248–268
Metaphors as tools for understanding in science communication among experts and to the public
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 4 August 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.22016.sme
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.22016.sme
Abstract
Science communication is highly important in present-day society. But mere factual information transfer does not suffice for enhancing public understanding of scientific results, theories, and concepts. In this paper we compare science communication among experts with communication from experts to laypeople, to better understand the role of metaphors in constructing understanding of abstract scientific concepts. As a case study, we analyze specialist and non-specialist scientific articles on epigenetics, the study of heritable changes in gene expression not altering DNA sequence. The results of our analysis show that there is no substantial difference between the two types of articles in frequency of metaphors and in their content. However, the function of the metaphors is different: the figurative aspect of metaphors is employed for public understanding but plays no role in specialist scientific articles. We outline the implications of these results for current philosophical debates on scientific understanding and public understanding of science: (1) metaphors are tools for rendering theoretical concepts intelligible, for both expert and lay audiences; (2) expert and public understanding differ in degree rather than in kind; (3) conveying understanding crucially involves skills: metaphors in this context do not so much add knowledge as enhance relevant conceptual reasoning abilities.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical Framework
- 2.1Expert versus public understanding of science: A philosophical analysis
- 2.2A linguistic perspective on the role of metaphor in understanding
- 2.3Research aim and hypotheses
- 3.Methods
- 3.1Choice of case and research design
- 3.2Metaphor analysis
- 3.3Data sources
- 4.Results
- 4.1Quantitative results
- 4.2Qualitative results
- 4.3Open metaphors in non-specialist scientific articles
- 4.4Closed metaphors in specialist scientific articles
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (62)
Baedke, J., & Schöttler, T. (2017). Visual metaphors in the sciences: The case of epigenetic landscape images. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48(2), 173–194.
Baylin, S. B., & Herman, J. G. (2000). DNA hypermethylation in tumorigenesis: Epigenetics joins genetics. Trends in Genetics, 16(4), 168–174.
Beger, A. (2015). Metaphors in psychology genres. In B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp. 53–75). John Benjamins.
Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 11–39). Routledge.
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., & Low, G. (2010). Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis (pp. 116–146). Equinox.
Cornelissen, J. P., Clarke, J. S., & Cienki, A. (2012). Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International small business journal, 30(3), 213–241.
Crossley, M. (2013). Explainer: What is epigenetics? The Conversation. [URL] (accessed June 2, 2020).
De Regt, H.W., Leonelli, S., & Eigner, K. (Eds). (2009). Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dubois, M., Louvel, S., Le Goff, A., Guaspare, C., & Allard, P. (2019). Epigenetics in the public sphere: interdisciplinary perspectives. Environmental Epigenetics, 5(4), 1–11.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
English, K. (1998). Understanding science: When metaphors become terms. ASp: La Revue du GERAS [Online], 19–22. [URL];
Ennis, C. (2014). Epigenetics 101: A beginner’s guide to explaining everything. The Guardian. [URL] (accessed June 2, 2020).
Gee, B. (1978). Models as a pedagogical tool: Can we learn from Maxwell? Physics Education, 13(5), 287–291.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giles, T. D. (2001). The missing metaphor. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 31(4), 373–390.
Goldberg, A. D., Allis, C. D., & Bernstein, E. (2007). Epigenetics: A landscape takes shape. Cell, 128(4), 635–638.
Gorski, D. (2013). Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means. Science-Based Medicine. [URL] (Last accessed June 2, 2020).
Greally, J. M. (2018). A user’s guide to the ambiguous word ‘epigenetics’. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 19(4), 207–208.
Grimm, S., Baumberger, C., & Ammon, S. (Eds). (2017). Explaining understanding. New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science. Routledge.
Henikoff, S., & Matzke, M. A. (1997). Exploring and explaining epigenetic effects. Trends in Genetics, 13(8), 293–295.
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057–1074.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
Johnson-Sheehan, R. D. (1998). Metaphor in the rhetoric of scientific discourse. In J. T. Battalio (Ed.), Essays in the study of scientific discourse, Methods, Practice, and Pedagogy, ATTW Contemporary Studies in Technical Communication, 61 (pp. 167–179), Ablex.
Khalifa, K. (2017). Understanding, explanation, and scientific knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Kyratzis, A. (1997). Metaphorically speaking: Sex, politics, and the Greeks [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lancaster University.
Laird, P. W., & Jaenisch, R. (1996). The role of DNA methylation in cancer genetics and epigenetics. Annual Review of Genetics, 30(1), 441–464.
Macmillan online dictionary (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Macmillan Publishers, Retrieved April 10, 2018, from [URL]
Miller, G. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–250). Cambridge University Press.
Miller, P. (2012). A thing or two about twins. National Geographic Magazine, January issue. [URL] (accessed June 2, 2020).
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 101, 115–120.
Miller, T. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 29–46.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. University of Chicago Press.
Nerlich, B., Stelmach, A., & Ennis, C. (2020). How to do things with epigenetics: An investigation into the use of metaphors to promote alternative approaches to health and social science, and their implications for interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Science Information, 59(1), 59–92.
Park, A. (2015). Explaining ‘epigenetics’: The health buzzword you need to know. TIME Magazine. [URL] (accessed June 2, 2020).
Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 217–248). Academic Press.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 221, 1–39.
Reik, W., Dean, W., & Walter, J. (2001). Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science, 293(5532), 1089–1093.
Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & Van Mil, M. H. W. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports 211: e51278.
Smedinga, M., de Regt, H. W., & Cienki, A. (2023, May 7). Data of metaphor analysis related to publication: “Metaphors as tools for understanding in science communication among experts and to the public.” Retrieved from [URL]
Steen, G. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 1–6.
Stelmach, A., & Nerlich, B. (2015). Metaphors in search of a target: The curious case of epigenetics. New Genetics and Society, 34(2), 196–218.
Strevens, M. (2013). No understanding without explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 441, 510–515.
Taylor, C., & Dewsbury, B. M. (2018). On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–5.
Turan, N., Katari, S., Coutifaris, C., & Sapienza, C. (2010). Explaining inter-individual variability in phenotype: Is epigenetics up to the challenge? Epigenetics, 5(1), 16–19.
Vervaeke, J., & J. M. Kennedy. (2004). Conceptual metaphor and abstract thought. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(3), 213–231.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Oliveira, Alandeom W., Adam O. Brown, Gabrielle Shao & Alysha Wenghofer
Poudel, Diana
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
