Medialized Science?

Allgaier, Joachim; Dunwoody, Sharon; Brossard, Dominique; Lo, Yin-Yueh; Peters, Hans Peter

doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.802477

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The dominant frame position of healthcare in the neuroimaging research reporting is in line with previous research (Racine et al 2006 , 2010 ; O’Connor et al 2012 ). It also concurs with the neuroscientists’ perception of a strong public interest in medical applications (Allgaier et al 2013 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…However, in the particular case of free will, it could also be related to sensationalism. In a study by Allgaier et al ( 2013 ), German neuroscientists put forward that reporting on neuroscientific experiments that challenge the existence of a free will was exaggerated and framed as a vast debate within neuroscience, when few are in fact engaged in this research topic. In the Netherlands, also little neuroimaging research is devoted to the matter of free will.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret “responsible innovation” as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, many researchers do recognise the media as a useful route to reach nonacademic publics, and recognise the role their press office can play in this process (Wilkinson and Weitkamp forthcoming). In a study of neuroscientists, Allgaier et al (2013) report a recognition of the value of having their research reported in the media and general satisfaction with media coverage of their research. Allgaier et al go on to suggest that the neuroscientists they interviewed showed a certain level of instrumentality in their interactions with the media, using the media to enhance their competitiveness and personal profile.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Agenda Building In Media Coverage of Food Research

Weitkamp¹,

Eidsvaag²

2014

Journalism Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern has been raised about the rising influence of public relations on scientific news coverage and the potential role of institutional sources in shaping news reports. This study uses quantitative content analysis and qualitative interviews to explore the influence of public relations activities on newspaper coverage of "superfoods" and, in particular, to explore the transparency of reporting of the sources of research funding. Superfoods were chosen as a case study because the term is applied to a wide range of foods with potential health benefits (e.g. foods high in antioxidants). Furthermore, foods labelled as "superfoods" have seen sharp increases in sales, suggesting a potential commercial incentive for such labelling. Analysis of a sample of news articles reporting superfoods revealed a considerable influence for media releases in shaping the content of reports, while less than a third of reports discussing research studies funded by organisations with a commercial interest in the findings mentioned the funding sources. Qualitative interviews confirmed the role of press offices in promoting research, particularly from scientific conferences, and suggest that scientific societies are applying less stringent criteria to studies selected for publication than in the past.

show abstract

“…Surveys have shown that "interactions with the media have become part of the routine work in (neuro)science independently of whether researchers personally welcome such activity or not" (Allgaier et al, 2013b, p. 418). Most of the surveyed neuroscientists expect positive consequences of public visibility and assume that journalistic coverage has a large influence on the public opinion and political decision-making on scientific topics (Allgaier et al, 2013a(Allgaier et al, , 2013bKoh et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns in the journalistic selection of neuroscientific research results

Kohler¹,

Promies²,

Lehmkuhl³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the journalistic selection of scientific results from the field of neuroscience with other scientific disciplines. Based on an input-output analysis using data from the citation database Scopus and the alternative bibliometrics provider Altmetric, we investigated which scientific studies from which scientific journals have been selected by global journalism. Previous research suggests that the selection of sources and results in science journalism follows a certain heavy-tailed distribution, a power law. This structure of journalistic coverage is a result of conditions on the micro-level of actions and decisions of individual journalists. Among these conditions are restrictions that derive from the process and constitution of scientific publishing and research results. We argue that the parameter of such power law distributions can potentially be used to describe selectivity in journalism on a high aggregation level. Differences in the value of the parameter point to differences in the conditions present on the micro-level. To test this assumption, we chose a field of research that has attracted a considerable degree of public attention over the last few years: neuroscience. We expected to find differences in the exponent of power law distributions between neuroscience and other scientific disciplines. Our results show that the frequency distribution of journalistic references to single studies and journals in the coverage of neuroscientific research can be described by a power law. The selection of scientific journals is more homogenous in neuroscience in the sense that there is a less pronounced dominance of just a few journals. It is proposed to interpret this as an effect of the greater popularity of neuroscience.

show abstract

Medialized Science?

Cited by 29 publications

References 20 publications

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

Agenda Building In Media Coverage of Food Research

Patterns in the journalistic selection of neuroscientific research results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About