[glesphlep (OP)]

I would have thought getting some information would be great.

Many thanks for your interest! I would love to share what I have learned.

I would have thought just a short section, perhaps your conclusions or main results would be enough.

That should be no problem at all. I will share my conclusions once I have drawn them and received feedback.
I think sharing the abstract of my paper would be the best option!

[glesphlep (OP)]

Hey,

I just wanted to share the abstract of my finished thesis here:

This study explores the crossroads between science, personified by experts, and sound media, including their listeners: How do recent science radio broadcasts and podcasts aim to establish interaction between experts and the listening public through their rhetoric, format and affordances? The aim is to understand the roles specialists and citizens enact within the shows and society.
The theoretical framework approaches the programmes with three variables: a rhetorical analysis of their audio and platform content to uncover the linguistic aims, an analysis of their format and in-show interactions to understand the division of responsibilities, and a study of both programmes' affordances to listeners and experts to reveal the possibilities and impossibilities for interaction.
The analysis compares a BBC radio show with an independent podcast by an MIT lecturer and researcher: The Naked Scientists (TNS) and the Lex Fridman Podcast (LFP). The sources stem from a selection of seven pairs of episodes with matching topics. In addition, this thesis builds on an analysis of 8 interviews conducted with active and non-active listeners. The selection of the BBC show permits a contextualisation through BBC guidelines and regulations.
The findings reveal a fundamental challenge that drives the interaction between experts and the public. Sound media shows are confronted with the dilemma of making scientific knowledge accessible while sharing the complex confrontations essential for scientific progress. They express their approaches to the problem through different goals, communication tools and roles for their guests, listeners and hosts. LFP decides to share the challenges within scientific fields and engage listeners with the fundamental questions but has to accept that the broad public has difficulties accessing its content. TNS informs and actively involves its audience with easily accessible content. However, it does not prepare its listeners for disagreements, ambiguities or contradictions within science.

I have also attached my full thesis, in case anybody is interested in having a look!

Many thanks!