Abstract
This chapter outlines the problem that the Yearbook volume addresses – the science/mass media relation in modern societies – and introduces the medialization concept as an approach to the study of mass media related changes in science both with regard to its institutional and epistemic characteristics. From a differentiation theory perspective we propose to shift from using “knowledge” as a basic concept to “communication” as a superior analytical distinction between science and other social spheres because focusing on communication brings different publics as its reference into the picture. This perspective allows sharpening the question which kinds of mutual relations between different systems really lead to the disappearance of one or the other, i.e. to a blurring of boundaries between science and the media. It enables the analyst to distinguish between any adaptations to “external” expectations and to locate them in organisations, roles or interactions. The central question is if the effects of science’s orientation towards the media – by incorporating mass media related criteria of relevance into communication strategies – remain limited to activities on the front stage produced just for public view or if they extend to the back stage, thus affecting the criteria of relevance in knowledge production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The embargo system, however, has been criticized for being a control instrument in science communication which serves to maximize the publicity that a journal gets from the popular media (Kiernan 1997).
- 2.
The term “science” includes mathematics, technology, engineering and medicine as well as the natural sciences. The non-scientific “public” is divided into five categories: (i) private individuals for their personal satisfaction and well-being; (ii) individual citizens for participation in civic responsibilities as members of a democratic society; (iii) people employed in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, the large majority of which now have some scientific content; (iv) people employed in the middle ranks of management and in professional and trades union associations; (v) people responsible for major decision-making in our society, particularly those in industry and government (The Royal Society 1985: 7).
References
Barnes, B., D. Bloor, and J. Henry (1996). Scientific knowledge. A sociological analysis. London: Ahtlone.
Bauer, M. W. (1995). Science and technology in the British Press, 1946–1990. London: Science Museum and Wellcome Trust.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375–394.
Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.
Bucchi, M. and F. Neresini (2002). Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature, 416(6878), 261.
Collins, H. M. and R. Evans (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.
Elmer, C., F. Badenschier, and H. Wormer (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 878–893.
Evans, G. and J. Durant (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57–74.
Felt, U., H. Nowotny, and K. Taschwer (1995). Wissenschaftsforschung: Eine Einführung. Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus.
Fleck, L. ([1935] 1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Franzen, J. L., P. D. Gingerich, J. Habersetzer, et al. (2009). Complete primate skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and paleobiology. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5723.
Franzen, M. (2009). Torwächter der Wissenschaft oder Einfallstor für die Massenmedien? Zur Rolle von Science und Nature an der Schnittstelle zwischen Wissenschaft und medialer Öffentlichkeit. In S. Stöckel et al. (eds.), Das Medium Wissenschaftszeitschrift seit dem 19. Jahrhundert. Verwissenschaftlichung der Gesellschaft – Vergesellschaftung von Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 229–252.
Franzen, M. (2011). Breaking News: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften im Kampf um Aufmerksamkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz (1993). The Emergence of Post-Normal Science. In R. V. Schomberg (ed.), Science, politics and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 85–123.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Greco, P. (2007). University in the 21st century. Journal of Science Communication, 6(2), np.
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Third Report. London.
Irwin, A. and B. Wynne (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
Kepplinger, H. M. (2001). Die Kunst der Skandalisierung und die Illusion der Wahrheit. München: Olzog.
Kiernan, V. (1997). Ingelfinger, embargoes, and other controls on the dissemination of science news. Science Communication, 18, 297–319.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies. The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff et al. (eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 140–166.
Kohring, M. (2005). Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: UVK.
Krotz, F. (2001). Die Mediatisierung kommunikativen Handelns. Der Wandel von Alltag und sozialen Beziehungen, Kultur und Gesellschaft durch die Medien. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1979). Laboratory life. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403–436.
Livescience. (May 20, 2009). C. Moskowitz: Amid media circus, scientists doubt ‘Ida’ is your ancestor, available at: http://www.livescience.com/animals/090520-fossil-reactions.html (last accessed on November 9, 2010).
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. [English translation: Social Systems (1995), Stanford: Stanford University Press].
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Lundby, K. (ed.). (2009). Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.
Nature (2009). Media frenzy. Nature, 459(7246), 484.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science. How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
Nerlich, B., R. Dingwall, and D. D. Clarke (2002). The book of life: How the completion of the Human Genome Project was revealed to the public. Health, 6(4), 445–469.
Nowotny, H. (2005). Science and society: High- and low-cost realities for science and society. Science, 308(5725), 1117–1118.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Peters, H. P., H. Heinrichs, A. Jung, et al. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimation and political relevance. In D. Cheng, et al. (eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 71–92.
Rödder, S. (2009a). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life.” Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 452–463.
Rödder, S. (2009b). Wahrhaft sichtbar. Humangenomforscher in der Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87–101.
Science (2002). From PUS to PEST. Science, 298(5591), 49.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
Stichweh, R. (2003). The multiple publics of science: Inclusion and popularization, available at: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(de)/soz/iw/pdf/stw_science_popular.pdf (last accessed on July 7, 2010).
Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft (1999). Dialog Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. PUSH-Symposium, Essen.
Süddeutsche Zeitung (May 21, 2009). Ressort Wissen. P. Illinger: Viel Rummel um ein Urzeit-Äffchen, available at: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/grube-messel-viel-rummel-um-ein-urzeit-aeffchen-1.441196 (last accessed on November 9, 2010).
The Australian (May 21, 2009). L. Dayton: Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link, available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25515021-2702,00.html (last accessed on November 9, 2010).
The Royal Society (1985). The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.
Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(9), 869–879.
Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück.
Weingart, P. and P. Pansegrau (1999). Reputation in science and prominence in the media: The Goldhagen Debate. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 1–16.
Whitley, R. (1985). Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers. In T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds.), Expository science. Forms and functions of popularisation. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook IX. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 3–28.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franzen, M., Weingart, P., Rödder, S. (2012). Exploring the Impact of Science Communication on Scientific Knowledge Production: An Introduction. 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_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2084-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2085-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)