| Summary: | 碩士 === 南華大學 === 出版事業管理研究所 === 94 === The most lasting and significant publications for science popular book reviewing in Taiwan are the China Times and the United Daily News. Thus, the main purpose of this research is to explore the publishing prescription and the content integrality of the science popular book reviews of these two newspapers. It can represent the current situation of the publications of science popular book review in Taiwan. The total samples (book reviews) of our research are 386 and the sampling period is from which they have been published periodically to the end of December, 2005.
This research used Content Analysis method to analyze the publishing prescription and the content integrality of our samples. For the analysis of publishing prescription, we used each single month as one unit, and then to code the time difference between the publishing period of the book and the publishing period of its book review. This analysis was to explore the immediacy of two newspapers on book-reviews publishing. On the other hand, for the analysis of content integrality, we used Wilson''s and Bishop''s standard of children''s book review, which was established by content analysis, questionnaire, and statistics, to analyze our samples. The conclusions are:
1. The quantity of science popular book reviews: In terms of the proportion of total number of book reviews and total titles of books, the low proportion of quantity of book reviews in two newspapers shows that we need more publications for science popular book reviewing in Taiwan.
2. The publishing prescription of science popular book reviews: All science popular book reviews from two newspapers were published two month later after those books being published. This result did not match the assumption that book reviews should immediately be published for "new" books.
3. The content integrality of science popular book reviews: No matter in which newspaper, the average of total score and the average of reachable rate on single book review are low. In addition, there is no significant growing tendency over year on every single analytic standard of two newspapers. It implies that although the low average of standard of content integrality, the two newspapers don’t have the awareness of improving the content integrality of book reviewing.
In conclusion, the science popular book reviewing in Taiwan should be improved whether in its quality and quantity. On the other hand, as the two leading publications of science popular book reviewing in Taiwan, these two newspaper should put more efforts on improving publishing prescription and content integrality of book reviewing in order to be a adequate role model for other book-review publications in the future.
|
|---|
