Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 28))

Abstract

This chapter traces the short history of science blogs, with particular reference to blogs published by scientists. It situates the slow growth of scientists’ blogs in the contexts of the wider, emerging blogosphere and of the proliferation of science media published through the Internet. In published discussion of science blogs strong claims have been made about their potential to support broad social engagement with science. It has also been claimed that science blogging has had direct impacts on the conduct and governance of science. This chapter notes that much of this commentary has been written by advocates and, taking a more detached view, it focuses most on any evidence that scientists’ blogging opens the backstage processes of science (or science-in the-making) to wider view and public participation. A review of general characteristics of scientists’ blogs indicates they show low levels of interactivity and points to evidence of early disaffection with this medium of communication. It is shown that scientists’ blogs rarely facilitate access to science’s backstage processes. One exceptional case is climate science, as demonstrated in the “Climategate” affair. The chapter reviews the intense discussions of climate science in the blogosphere and the key role of blogs in “Climategate” and, drawing from the exceptional character of this case, discusses the factors constraining scientists’ adoption of blogs in their professional and public communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We prefer to use the term mediatization to show that this is a different, somewhat broader media concept than the medialization approach that the editors use (see Chapter 1).

References

  • Baker, S. and H. Green (2005). Blogs will change your business. Business Week, 39(31), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batts, S. A., N. J. Anthis, and T. C. Smith (2008). Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology, 6(9), 1837–1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, R. (2010). UN climate body admits ‘mistake’ on Himalayan glaciers, BBC News website, posted 19 January 2010 (last accessed on March 15, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonetta, L. (2007). Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell, 129(3), 443–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, T. and J. Lewis (eds.) (2009). Climate change and the media. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T., et al. (2010). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (2005). Joint efforts. Nature, 438(1 December), 548–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S. (2007). Blogging for physics. Physics World, January, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courrielche, P. (2010). Peer-to-peer review: How Climategate marks the maturing of a new science movement, posted at http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/08/peer-to-peer-review-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement-part-i/ (last accessed on October 11, 2010).

  • Curry, J. (2010). Reflections on climategate. People & Science, March 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. and E. Vaast (2009). Tech talk: An investigation of blogging in technology innovation discourse. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(1), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumlao, R. and S. Duke (2001). The web and e-mail in science communication. Science Communication, 24(3), 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. (2006). Science blogs as a vehicle for upscale ads. The New York Times, January 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenner, M. (2008). Why do we blog and other important questions, answered by 34 science bloggers, posted on http://blogs.nature.com/mfenner/2008/11/30/why-do-we-blog-and-other-important-questions-answered-by-34-science-bloggers (last accessed on 11 March 2010).

  • Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavin, N. (2009). The web and climate change politics: Lessons from Britain. In T. Boyce and J. Lewis (eds.), Climate change and the media. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramling, C. (2008). Science bloggers question their role. Geotimes, 53(6), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J. and S. Miller (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. (2007). Talking physics in the social web. Physics World, January 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere – An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannay, T. (2007). Web 2.0 in science, CTWatch Quarterly, 3(3), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, H. (2005). Blog: Understanding the information reformation that’s changing your world. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. and R. Kellmann (2009). Blogging’s global impact and the future of blogging, posted at http://technorati.com/blogging/article/day-5-twitter-global-impact-and/page-2/ (last accessed on March 15, 2010).

  • Inter-Academy Council (2010). Climate change assessments – Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC. Amsterdam: Inter-Academy Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), posted at http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901%282010%29A02/ (last accessed on December 22, 2010).

  • Kovic, I., I. Lulic, and G. Brumini (2008). Examining the medical blogosphere: An online survey of medical blogger. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3), posted at http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e28/ (last accessed on December 22, 2010).

  • Lagu, T., et al. (2008). Content of weblogs written by health professionals. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(10), 1642–1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action – How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MASIS Expert Group (2009). Challenging futures of science in society: Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massoli, L. (2007). Science on the net: An analysis of the websites of the European public research institutions, Journal of Science Communication, 6(3), posted at http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/06/03/JCOM0603%282007%29A03/ (last accessed on December 22, 2010).

  • McClellan, J. (2004). Inside the ivory tower. The Guardian, Online supplement (23 September), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minol, K., et al. (2007). Portals, blogs and co.: The role of the Internet as a medium of science communication. Biotechnology Journal, 2(9), 1129–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, C. and S. Kirschenbaum (2009). Unpopular science. The Nation, August 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A., et al. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature (2009). Editorial: Filling the void. Nature, 458(19 March), 260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Methods (2009). Editorial: Lines of communication. Nature Methods, 6(3), 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. (2009). Doing science in the open. Physics World, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, F. (2010a). Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim, NewScientist.com, posted 11 January 2010 (last accessed on March 15, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, F. (2010b). The Climate Files – The battle for the truth about global warming. London: Guardian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, I. (2001). Touring the scientific web. Science Communication, 22, 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Internet and American Life Project (2006). The Internet as a resource for news and information about science, posted at http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Internet-as-a-Resource-for-News-and-Information-about-Science.aspx (last accessed on March 11, 2010).

  • Rogers, R. and N. Marres (2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, A. (2004). The blogosphere. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rzepa, H. (1998). The Internet as a medium for science communication. In E. Scanlon et al. (eds.), Communicating science: Volume 1 – Professional contexts. London: Routledge, pp. 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secko, D. (2007). Scooped by a blog. The Scientist, 21(4), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifry, D. (2006). State of the blogosphere. October 2006, posted 7 August 2006 at http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000443.html (last accessed on March 15, 2010).

  • Sifry, D. (2008). State of the blogosphere. September 2008, posted 22 September 2008 at http://www.sifry.com/alerts/2008/09/technoratis-state-of-the-blogosphere-september-2008/ (last accessed on December 17, 2010).

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Technorati (2010). State of the Blogosphere 2010 at http://technorati.com/blogging/feature/state-of-the-blogosphere-2010/ (last accessed on December 17, 2010).

  • Tola, E. (2008). To blog or not to blog, not a real choice there. Journal of Science Communication, 7(2), posted at http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/02/Jcom0702%282008%29C01/Jcom0702%282008%29C06, (last accessed on December 22, 2010).

  • Tomlin, S. (2007). Blogging science. Science & Public Affairs, September 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2007). How the Internet changed science journalism. In M. Bauer and M. Bucchi (eds.), Journalism science and society. London: Routledge, pp. 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2008). Internet: Turning science communication inside-out. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge, pp. 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2009). Science reporting in the electronic embrace of the Internet. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, and J. Thomas (eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 166–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A. (2010). The poisonous pro-am clash in the boffins’ blogosphere. Sunday Times, February 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiverronen, E. (2001). From mediation to mediatization: The new politics of communicating science and technology. In U. Kivikuru and T. Savolianen (eds.), The politics of public issues. Helsinki: Department of Communication, University of Helsinki, pp. 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. (2008). Science 2.0: Great new tool or great risk? Scientific American, May, 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, J. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(8), 411–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the assistance of graduate student Sean Marshall in the review of general features of science blogs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Trench .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Trench, B. (2012). Scientists’ Blogs: Glimpses Behind the Scenes. In: Rödder, S., Franzen, M., Weingart, P. (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics