BEYOND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: REFRAMING NUCLEAR ENERGY COMMUNICATION IN INDONESIA

• DOI: 10.37572/EdArt_28092630711

• Palavras-chave: Nuclear energy communication; science communication; media representation; knowledge translation; public meaning.

• Keywords: Nuclear energy communication; science communication; media representation; knowledge translation; public meaning.

• Abstract:

  Nuclear energy communication is often framed as an effort to improve public understanding and increase public acceptance of nuclear technology. Such an approach, however, may reduce communication to an instrumental activity in which scientific information is transmitted to the public to support a predetermined technological or policy agenda. This chapter proposes a broader understanding of nuclear energy communication as a process through which scientific knowledge is translated, represented, circulated, and interpreted as a public issue. Drawing on a constructivist paradigm and a qualitative case study, the chapter examines the communication practices of the Indonesian Nuclear Society Association (HIMNI), nuclear scientists, and Indonesian research institutions. Data were collected through interviews with nuclear scientists, participatory observation of HIMNI webinar activities, and document analysis of communication materials produced by HIMNI, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and the former National Nuclear Energy Agency. The analysis shows that nuclear energy communication in Indonesia is shaped by several interconnected processes. First, nuclear energy is commonly represented through scientific, technological, and developmental narratives. Second, complex technical knowledge is translated into more accessible public explanations through popular media, webinars, and institutional communication. Third, communication tends to emphasize the potential benefits of nuclear technology, while uncertainty, risk, historical controversy, and competing public interpretations receive less systematic attention. Fourth, institutional changes from BATAN to BRIN have created a communication gap, particularly through the discontinuation of NUTECH and the limited availability of public-oriented nuclear education content on institutional platforms. The chapter argues that nuclear energy communication should be understood not merely as a strategy for producing acceptance, but as a process of constructing public meaning around energy, technology, risk, and national development.