Science in Context 26 (3):437-457 (2013)

ArgumentThis article is based on a detailed survey of three British popular science magazines published during the interwar years. It focuses on the authors who wrote for the magazines, using the information to analyze the ways in which scientists and popular writers contributed to the dissemination of information about science and technology. It shows how the different readerships toward which the magazines were directed determined the proportion of trained scientists who provided material for publication. The most serious magazine,Discovery, featured almost exclusively material written by professional scientists, while the most popular,Armchair Science, favored writers who were not professional scientists, but who probably had some technical knowledge. Another magazine,Conquest, tried to provide a balance between authoritative and popular articles; however, it survived for only a few years.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0269889713000136
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,512
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Science of Life.H. G. Wells, Julian Huxley & G. P. Wells - 1931 - Philosophy 6 (24):506-507.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
7 ( #1,072,325 of 2,520,899 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,457 of 2,520,899 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes