Trust or attention? Medialization of science revisited

Abstract

The article traces the intensifying media orientation of universities and research organizations first by referring to early diagnoses of the spread of mutual observation and attention seeking as defining societies after WWII. This development provides the background for the unlikely, yet massive turn of scientific organizations to the general public, the media and more recently social media. Details are analyzed on the interactional, organizational and systems levels, and are followed with a focus on the reasons motivating universities. A closer look reveals the self-referentiality of institutional communication deriving its rationale from ‘imagined publics’. The politically sponsored ‘engagement of the public’ has been derailed to become marketing, branding and public relations exercises. The unintended consequences of the establishment of communication units and the blurring of science communication and persuasion are conflicts between faculty and management and possibly a loss of trust in science.

The role of organizations in the public communication of science – Early research, recent studies, and open questions

“…Diagnosing a trend toward "medialization of science", Weingart (2001Weingart ( , 2012 has pointed to potential repercussions of a stronger "coupling" between science and media for the autonomy of science. In a recent essay, Weingart (2022) has extended this critique with respect to public communication of scientific communicators. He argues that striving for public resonance, especially through organizational PR similar to that of corporations, may contradict both the values of science and the expectations of the public, andagainst the intention -may actually endanger public trust in science rather than foster it.…”

Communicating science through competing logics and a science-art lens

“…Higher education, like much of the public sector, has during the last two decades faced an increased marketization, which has spurred commercialization and corporatization pushing for branding activities and emphasis on public relations [e.g. Engwall & Weaire, 2008;Wedlin, 2011;Weingart, 2022]. This is also in line with the ambition to communicate universities as 'complete organizations' [cf.…”

“…However, at the same time Väliverronen and Saikkonen [2021] and Weingart [2022] stress that there is risk with this development and that the expert role is challenged and may even become devaluated -not least because of various social mediawhen an increasing number of actors with different knowledge claims are competing for attention. This is especially challenging when scientists are, in their expert role, accused for having a scientific jargon and asked, or even pushed, to simplify and adjust to the media logic -with the result that what is communicated is by laypeople understood as common sense [cf.…”

Looking back and looking ahead

“…The next four essays represent different theoretical views on public understanding and communication of science. Peter Weingart (2022) revisits his “medialization of science” thesis, linking it to more general societal trends of increasing orientation toward mass media, introduction of audit policies in science, and the digitalization of society. While not arguing against the usefulness of and demand for public communication, he criticizes the self-referential public relations approach of an “institution that is devoted to communicating ‘true facts’” (p. 290), and the “collateral damage of attention-seeking” (p. 291).…”