The types of visible scientists

Abstract

We lack a good framework to characterize media-related adaptations of researchers. This paper explores Estonian scientists visible in the media to propose five dimensions to characterize the degree of mediatization of a researcher, and describes two basic types of visible scientists. Representatives of one type (‘adapters to media logic’) are able to explain the project simply and engagingly in the media, while those of the second type (‘adopters of media logic’) proactively create media interactions and manage them to achieve strategic aims. The results show how individual actors translate communication objectives into media practices, explaining variabilities in scientists' media presence.

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

“…These professors are able to translate their academic symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1984 ) into public arenas, “thus popularizing not only on issues directly related to their own domain but on virtually any issue.” (Jensen et al, 2008 , p. 536). On the other hand these visible scientists (Goodell, 1977 ) have become adopters of media logic (Olesk, 2021 ) and have—supported by increasingly routine institutional PR-strategies—established a public reputation not just based on their scientific activities but based on their past public involvement as an expert on the topic at hand. Here, a self-reinforcing dynamic named the Matthew effect appears, as previous visibility translates into further media presence (Bucchi, 2014 ).…”

“…Just as academics should try to carry weight in their field by publishing scholarly texts, they should also look for opportunities to put their expertise and insights at the service of society (Peters, 2008 ). Of course, interventions like these might target particular segments of society, like a personal following on social media platforms (Davies & Hara, 2017 ) or a specific group of stakeholders participating in institutionally supported outreach programs (Olesk, 2021 ). A more general role in the public debate is particularly valued, as it is seen as a direct attempt to make the expertise and insights of scientists accessible to large audiences (Bucher, 2019 ; Peters, 2008 ).…”

“…Although the assumption that society benefits from featuring factual, research-based contributions from academics is hardly controversial, there is no solid evidence for assuming that the presence of researchers in mainstream media is as such consequential, or that pursuing it is rewarding. For one, popular media are hardly unbiased platforms ready to serve as a neutral conduit for what researchers have to offer (Burns & Medvecky, 2018 ) Mainstream media operate by their own—often competition-based—logics (Olesk, 2021 ). As such, the belief that scientists would have an equal opportunity to access mainstream media as a platform to make research-based contributions to society would border on naivety, as previous research underlined how media attention for scholars is strongly status-dependent (Dudo, 2013 ; Dunwoody et al, 2009 ; Jensen et al, 2008 ).…”

“It’s my job”: A qualitative study of the mediatization of science within the scientist-journalist relationship

“…Framework used to analyze mediatization of scientists. Codes for Adaption and Adoption were drawn from Olesk's [2021] original typology, codes for Affiliation were developed inductively.…”

“…It does so using research (i.e., preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles) as the focal point for qualitative interviews, offering a view into this intersection of seemingly disparate professions as they negotiate the volatile waters of our global pandemic. We apply the mediatization of science as our conceptual approach and adapt a framework by Olesk [2021] to evaluate the mediatization patterns of scientists in relation to journalists, making this one of few studies that have investigated science-journalist interactions using an explicit theoretical framework [Dijkstra et al, 2015]. We add to Olesk's [2021] list of indicators, using scientist interactions with journalists to develop scientist personas-which Daston and Sibum [Daston & Sibum, 2003] called cultural identities-that might allow for a more nuanced understanding of scientists' professional roles alongside their personal needs, experiences, behaviors, and goals in the scientist-journalist relationship.…”