The Ambivalence of Visible Scientists

Rödder, Simone

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8

Cited by 41 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientists, trained for years to base their decisions on scientific findings only, naturally, emphasize the need for scientific knowledge, while journalists not necessarily hold these beliefs because they are more aware that scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge needed in society, and thus not the only information that informs high quality articles. Therefore, it would be interesting to further investigate the role of scientific knowledge or scientific expertise in the public domain [see also Felt and Fochler, 2012;Rödder, 2012] as has been argued by Nelkin [1995] as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

Dijkstra¹,

Roefs²,

Drossaert³

2015

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists’ participation in science communication and public engagement activities is considered important and a duty. However, in particular, the science-media relationship has not been studied frequently. In this paper, we present findings from interviews with both scientists and journalists which were guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Results show that different behavioural, normative and control beliefs underlie scientists’ and journalists’ participation in science-media interactions. Both groups are positive about science-media interactions, but scientists perceive various disadvantages in this relationship while journalists perceive mainly practical barriers. Enhancing mutual understanding and further research is suggested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

Dijkstra¹,

Roefs²,

Drossaert³

2015

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have shown that on the collective level the traditional norms of science are still in place to create a certain ambivalence toward media visibility [Peters, 2013;Rödder, 2012]. In the case of individual scientists, however, it is particularly difficult to distinguish between the motive to genuinely communicate to the public and self-promotion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science communication and the issue of trust

Weingart¹,

Guenther²

2016

JCOM

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science communication, whether internally or to the general public depends on trust, both trust in the source and trust in the medium of communication. With the new 'ecology of communication' this trust is endangered. On the one hand the very term of science communication has been captured by many different actors (e.g., governments, PR experts, universities and research institutions, science journalists, and bloggers) apart from scientists themselves to whom science communication means different things and whose communication is tainted by special interests. Some of these actors are probably more trusted by the general public than others. On the other hand, the channels that are used to communicate science are also not trusted equally. Particularly the widespread use of social media raises doubts about the credibility of the communication spread through them. AbstractScience and media; Science and policy-making; Science communication: theory and models Keywords

show abstract

“…2008a), other evidence points towards still persisting communication problems (Mervis 2009). Theoretical considerations (Weingart forthcoming) and evidence from cross‐country in‐depth interviews (Rödder forthcoming) suggest that they stem from an inherent conflict between scientific criteria and the restrictions of the mass media, that most notably a fear that the attribution of scientific reputation may be disrupted. So far, cases in which media prominence competed against scientific reputation such as Cold Fusion (Bucchi 1996; Lewenstein 1995b) and the Goldhagen debate (Weingart and Pansegrau 1999) demonstrate that the scientific community is able to restore its authority and reputation autonomy, albeit with a time lag.…”

Section: Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science and the Mass Media –‘Medialization’ as a New Perspective on an Intricate Relationship

Rödder

2011

Sociology Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey article discusses a recently proposed perspective on the science–media interface the concept of medialization. The medialization approach assumes that there is mutual resonance between science and the mass media. Medialization research systematically investigates structural transformation in science: What are the implications of high media attention for science funding, for research agendas, for universities and the professional self‐understanding of scientists? And how do these developments relate to the production of scientific knowledge? For detailed empirical studies of these processes, the medialization approach separates the role of mass media, but its grounding in general social theory contextualises this research with social science studies on sciences relation to other spheres such as politics and the economy.

show abstract

The Ambivalence of Visible Scientists

Cited by 41 publications

References 18 publications

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

Science communication and the issue of trust

Science and the Mass Media –‘Medialization’ as a New Perspective on an Intricate Relationship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About