Abstract
Science communication has been defined as encompassing “all forms of communication by and about the sciences, within science (professional audience) as well as in the [broader] public sphere (general audience)”. This broad understanding of science communication includes all kinds of communication focusing on scientific work or scientific results, within science or to non-scientists, in one-directional or dialogical form. It also includes communication about the natural sciences, the arts or the humanities, and it has considerable overlaps with research fields such as health communication and risk communication. Content analysis, especially of media content, is a common method in the research field and this article provides an overview of this research.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Science communication has been defined as encompassing “all forms of communication by and about the sciences, within science (professional audience) as well as in the [broader] public sphere (general audience)” (Acatech 2017, p. 20; cf. Bubela et al. 2009; Bucchi and Trench 2014; Schäfer et al. 2015). This broad understanding of science communication includes all kinds of communication focusing on scientific work or scientific results, be it within science or to non-scientists, in one-directional or dialogical form (Kahan et al. 2017; Schäfer et al. 2019; Trench and Bucchi 2010). It also includes communication about the natural sciences, the arts or the humanities, and it has considerable overlaps with research fields such as health communication and risk communication.
Analyses of science communication emerged in the late 1960s, at the intersection of science education, social studies in science, mass communication, and museology (Trench and Bucchi 2010; Schäfer et al. 2019). The aim of this research was and still is “to understand the underlying mechanisms, structures, and effects of science communication [, and in doing so, science communication research] produced a large number of empirical studies on the content of science communication” (Schäfer et al. 2019, p. 77).
Meta-analyses and literature reviews have reconstructed the development of the research field and showed several trends. They have demonstrated that the research field grew in general, with more annual publications and an increasing number of research journals (Guenther and Joubert 2017; Rauchfleisch and Schäfer 2018; Schäfer 2012b). They also showed that content analyses are prevalent in research on science communication, (e.g., Bucchi and Trench 2014; Guenther and Joubert 2017; Kahan et al. 2017; Schäfer 2012b; Trench et al. 2014), that their number has grown significantly in recent decades (Guenther and Joubert 2017; Schäfer 2012b) and that they diversified in their research objects (Schäfer et al. 2019): they have internationalized and analyzed content from a more diverse set of countries (Guenther and Joubert 2017; Schäfer 2012b), analyzed more and more different media (Metag 2017; Schäfer 2017), and more scientific disciplines (Cassidy 2005; Schäfer 2012b; Summ and Volpers 2016).
2 Common Research Designs and Combinations of Methods
Meta-analyses have revealed a variety of research strategies and designs that are used in content-analyses of science communication: quantitative and qualitative content analyses including variants of linguistic (Fløttum 2016) and discourse analyses (e.g., Barr 2011; Koteyko and Atanasova 2016), comparative and cross-sectional studies comparing media outlets (e.g., Cacciatore et al. 2012; O’Neill 2013; Pellechia 1997), different countries (e.g., Metag and Marcinkowski 2014), and temporal developments (e.g., Clark and Illmann 2006; Dudo et al. 2011).
Both qualitative and quantitative content analyses are used equally often in the field, and that relation has remained roughly constant over time; albeit only a few publications combine both research strategies in the same study (Schäfer 2012b). Comparative (i.e., cross-sectional and/or longitudinal) studies make up more than every second analysis, but many researchers also employ case-study designs, analyzing one case in detail (Schäfer 2012b). Recently, analyses of science-related traditional media content have increasingly been supplemented by studies of online and social media communication (cf. Brossard and Scheufele 2013; Schäfer 2012a; e.g., Veltri 2013; Veltri and Atanasova 2017; Wang and Guo 2018).
Researchers in the field often use content analyses in combination with other methods. Studies have combined manual and computational content analysis, such as to detect intermedia agenda setting (Wang and Guo 2018). Content analysis is also frequently combined with population surveys to analyze communication effects, such as framing effects or cultivation. These studies often use content analyses to identify relevant depiction styles or media frames and then analyze the impact of these representations via surveys (Arlt and Wolling 2016; Dudo et al. 2010; Guenther et al. 2015; Guenther and Kessler 2017; Kessler 2016; Zimmermann et al. 2019). Recent studies also rely on content analysis as a method of evaluation; for example, in Kessler and Guenther (2017) and Kessler and Zillich (2018), eye-tracking recordings are coded by means of content analyses to investigate online search, selection, and reception behavior on scientific topics.
3 Main Constructs Employed in Science-Related Media Content Analyses
Content analyses on science communication have scrutinized diverse objects, issues, and fields. Most of them are single-discipline analyses, primarily (more than 80%) about natural sciences or related research fields such as biotechnology (e.g., Schäfer 2009), medical research (Ruhrmann et al. 2015), climate science (Painter et al. 2016; Schäfer 2012b); nanotechnology (e.g., Anderson et al. 2010; Metag and Marcinkowski 2014), cloning (e.g., Holliman 2004), evolutionary psychology (Cassidy 2005), and astronomy (e.g., Kiernan 2000). The studies analyze the depiction in different media, such as newspapers (e.g., Gavin 2009a), TV (e.g., Göpfert 1996; Kessler 2016) or websites (e.g., Madden et al. 2012), and different countries (albeit with a clear bias toward ‘Western’ countries; for an overview, see Schäfer 2012b).
Despite this diversity, several commonly analyzed constructs can be distilled from the field. Such common analytical foci of media content analyses are
-
1.
the overall amount of scientific content: Individual studies and meta-analyses (for an overview, see Bauer 2011 and Schäfer 2017) have investigated the growth in science-related media coverage mostly in traditional, print media in different countries (e.g., Bauer et al. 2006 in the UK and Bulgarian media; Clark and Illman 2006, Nisbet et al. 2003, and Pellechia 1997 in the US; Elmer et al. 2008 in Germany; Bucchi and Mazzolini 2003 in Italy; Vestergård and Nielsen 2017 in Denmark). They have shown that the amount of science-related media coverage grew until the 2000s, when the growth tailed off and stagnated (e.g. Bauer 2011).
-
2.
the representation of different actors or sources in media reporting: Studies examined the importance of different actors in media content and how they are depicted; focusing mostly on scientists and their roles, gender or presentation (Albaek et al. 2003; Fähnrich and Lüthje 2017; Niemi and Pitkänen 2017; Van Gorp et al. 2014). Content analyses of German newspapers and TV-talkshows demonstrated that scientists are quite visible in media coverage (Fähnrich and Lüthje 2017; Kessler and Lachenmaier 2017).
-
3.
evaluations of science and fundamental “modes” of coverage: Studies have analyzed the evaluation of science in media coverage (e.g. how critical, affirmative, or diverse the depiction is; cf. Bauer et al. 2006; Elmer et al. 2008; Nelkin 1995; Schäfer 2009; Vestergård and Nielsen 2017) and identified different modes of media coverage. Characteristic of the research of science communication is the analysis of the “popularization” (Peters, 1994), “science du chef” (Bucchi, 1998), and “mediatization” (Schäfer, 2009) modes of coverage. The popularization and science du chef modes are characterized by presenting scientific information that is explained by scientists or journalists but not problematized or critically questioned. In the mediatization mode, general criteria for journalistic reporting and the media apply to science coverage. These coverage mode often appear outside the science sections of newspapers, is triggered by socio-political or -cultural events, relies less on scientific sources, and is more confrontational and conflictual (Peters 1994; Schäfer 2009).
-
4.
the accuracy of the reporting as measured by scientific standards: Studies often tried to assess the accuracy of media coverage about science by comparing it with either scientific publications (e.g., Ankney et al. 1996) or press releases (e.g., Brechman et al. 2009; Sumner et al. 2014). These studies focused on the accuracy of online representations of science and scientific findings, often driven by the assumption that the lack of quality control and journalistic gatekeeping online might result in substandard portrayals of different scientific issues (cf. Barr 2011; Cacciatore et al. 2012; Gavin 2009b). A major focus of these content analyses was the investigation of the uncertainty presentation of scientific evidence among different strategic communicators, media, and/or regarding scientific issues (cf. Dudo et al. 2011; Guenther et al. 2019; Kessler 2016; Stocking and Holstein 2009) and especially in risk communication (Anderson et al. 2010; Arlt and Wolling 2016; Cacciatore et al. 2012; Mellor 2010). Media coverage always deviates to some extent from scientific publications; the coverage is often more exaggerated and sensationalist (e.g. Knudsen 2005), simplified, and devoid of complex issues (Brechman et al. 2009), uncertainties are either not or falsely represented (Dudo et al. 2011; Guenther et al. 2019; Kessler 2016; Stocking and Holstein 2009).
-
5.
the framing of science and scientific findings: With the shift from one-sided science communication toward more dialogical science communication that understands media as more than translators of science, the analytical focus of content analyses has also changed (Schäfer et al. 2019). Arguably the most important analytical focus was on how science is “framed” in media reporting. Framing research has shown that different facets of science are selected and made salient in media coverage about different issues (e.g., Durant et al. 1998 for genetically modified organisms; Kessler 2016 for medicine; Ruhrmann et al. 2015 for molecular medicine; Nisbet et al. 2003 for biotechnology; Zimmermann et al. 2019 for genetic testing; Gerhards and Schäfer 2009 for human genome research; Schäfer and O’Neill 2017 for climate change). Some studies compared the frames for various media (e.g., Boykoff 2008; Carvalho 2007) and countries (e.g., Boykoff and Boykoff 2007); cross-national framing analyses across longer time spans have even tried to develop generic frame sets that work across topics (e.g., Durant et al. 1998).
-
6.
visualization of scientific issues: Content analysis studies also examine visual science communication (i.e., the images used for various topics; Metag 2018; e.g., Rodriguez and Asoro 2012 on genetics and Wynn 2017 on nuclear power). There is a strong research focus on the topic of climate change in this context (e.g., Doyle 2007; O’Neill 2013; Wozniak et al. 2017). It turns out that here some images are used so prominently in public communication that they achieve an iconic status (Metag 2018).
4 Research Desiderata
A fundamental challenge for future research is to broaden the base of available knowledge about science-related content. For that, it would be useful to produce more comprehensive and comparative analyses that include different media, including online and mobile media, focus on different scientific issues/disciplines, and assess science communication in different countries, ideally over time. In particular, these studies should focus on aspects science-related content analyses that are systematically underresearched (Schäfer 2012b; Schäfer et al. 2019), such as non-Western countries, non-print media and especially online communication, and disciplines beyond STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.
Furthermore, content analyses should account for new communicative developments. For example, it should focus more on the increasingly multimodal nature of current communication that encompasses textual, visual and other elements (e.g. Wozniak et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2021), on new communicative forms such as memes and gifs (e.g. Lynch 2008), or on analyses of mobile communication (Taipale and Fortunati 2014).
In addition, the field would benefit from a more thorough attempt to share, re-apply, and standardize research instruments. So far, most individual studies have developed their own instruments, with very little exchange and standardization. This would also involve a more conscious and concerted effort to publish research instruments and data in the first place, in order to allow other researchers to reproduce instruments and measurements in as much detail as possible.
Relevant Variables in DOCA—Database of Variables for Content Analysis.
Scientific evidence/uncertainty: https://doi.org/10.34778/2h
References
Acatech (2017). Social Media and digital science communication. Position Paper. Munich: acatech – National Academy of Science and Engineering, German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. https://www.acatech.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WOM2_EN_web_final.pdf.
Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 937–948.
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(4), 1083–1094.
Ankney, R. N., Heilman, P., & Kolff, J. (1996). Newspaper coverage of the coronary artery bypass grafting report. Science Communication, 18(2), 153–164.
Arlt, D., & Wolling, J. (2016). Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 842–857.
Barr, S. (2011). Climate forums: virtual discourses on climate change and the sustainable lifestyle, Area, 43(1), 14–22.
Bauer, M. W. (2011). Public attention to science 1820–2010. A ‘longue durée’ picture. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen & P. Weingart (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection – Communication to the public and its repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook (pp. 35–58). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., Boyadjieva, P., & Gornev, G. (2006). Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science 36(1), 99–131.
Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change. In D. G. E. Liverman, C. P. G. Pereira, & B. Marker (Eds.), Communicating environmental geoscience (Geological Society Special Publication) (pp. 11–18).
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204.
Brechman, J., Lee, C., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Lost in translation?: A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication, 30(4), 453–474.
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(40). 40–41.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., … Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518.
Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. Alternative routes in scientific communication (Routledge Studies in Science, Technology and Society). London & New York: Routledge.
Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Big science, little news: science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 7–24.
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014). Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology, (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
Cacciatore, M. A., Anderson, A. A., Choi, D., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Liang, X., … Dudo, A. (2012). Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society, 14(6), 1039–1059.
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.
Cassidy, A. (2005). Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: an unusual case of science in the media? Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 115–141.
Clark, F., & Illman, D. L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times section. Science Communication, 27(4), 496–513.
Doyle, J. (2007). Picturing the clima(c)tic. Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Science as Culture, 16(2), 129–150.
Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2010). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754–777.
Dudo A. D., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Communication, 88(1), 55–75.
Durant, J., Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere. A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
Elmer, C., Badenschier, F., & Wormer, H. (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 878–893.
Fähnrich, B., & Lüthje, C. (2017). Roles of social scientists in crisis media reporting: The case of the German populist radical right movement PEGIDA. Science Communication, 39(4), 415–442.
Fløttum, K. (2016). Linguistic analysis approaches for assessing climate change communication. Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. Oxford: OUP.
Gavin, N. T. (2009a). Addressing climate change: a media perspective. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 765–780.
Gavin, N. T. (2009b). The web and climate change politics lessons from Britain? In T. Boyce & J. Lewis (Eds.), Climate change and the media (pp. 129–142). New York: Peter Lang.
Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2009). Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 437–451.
Göpfert, W. (1996). Scheduled science: TV coverage of science, technology, medicine and social science and programming policies in Britain and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 361–374.
Guenther, L., Bischoff, J., Löwe, A., Marzinkowski, H., & Voigt, M. (2019). Scientific evidence and science journalism: Analysing the representation of (un) certainty in German print and online media. Journalism studies, 20(1), 40–59.
Guenther, L., Froehlich, K., Milde, J., Ruhrmann, G., & Heidecke, G. (2015). Effects of valenced media frames of cancer diagnoses and therapies: Quantifying the transformation and establishing of evaluative schemas. Health Communication, 30(11), 1055–1064.
Guenther, L., & Joubert, M. (2017). Science communication as a field of research: Identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), 1–19.
Guenther, L., & Kessler, S. H. (2017). Epistemological dimensions on screen: The role of television presentations in changing conceptions about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 42(4), 481–501.
Holliman, R. (2004). Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science, 13(2), 107–130.
Kahan, D. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). Introduction: Why science communication? In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan & D. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 1–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kessler, S. H. (2016). Das ist doch evident! Eine Analyse dargestellter Evidenzframes und deren Wirkung am Beispiel von TV-Wissenschaftsbeiträgen [It’s evident! Identifying frames of evidence as used in science TV programs and testing their effects on beliefs] (Gesundheitskommunikation | Health Communication 12). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Kessler, S. H., & Guenther, L. (2017). Eyes on the frame: Explaining people’s online searching behavior in response to TV consumption. Internet Research, 27(2), 303–320.
Kessler, S. H., & Lachenmaier, C. (2017). Ohne Belege in den Talkshow-Olymp. Belegmuster und Akteure in Polit-Talkshows zur Griechenlandkrise. [No evidence on talk show olympics. Evidence patterns and actors in political talk shows on the Greek crisis]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65(1), 64–82.
Kessler, S. H., & Zillich, A. F. (2018). Searching online for information about vaccination: Assessing the influence of user-specific cognitive factors using eye-tracking. Health Communication, 44(2), 225–247.
Kiernan, V. (2000). The Mars Meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 15–41.
Knudsen, S. (2005). Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4). 373–392.
Koteyko, N., & Atanasova, D. (2016). Discourse analysis in climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford: OUP.
Lynch, A. (2008). Thought contagion: How belief spreads through society: The new science of memes. New York: Basic Books.
Madden, K., Nan, X., Briones, R., & Waks, L. (2012). Sorting through search results: A content analysis of HPV vaccine information online. Special Issue: The Role of Internet Use in Vaccination Decisions, 30(25), 3741–3746.
Mellor, F. (2010). Negotiating uncertainty: asteroids, risk and the media. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 16–33.
Metag, J. (2017). Rezeption und Wirkung öffentlicher Wissenschaftskommunikation [Reception and effect of public science communication]. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 251–274). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Metag, J. (2018). Visuelle Wissenschaftskommunikation. In K. Lobinger (Ed.), Handbuch Visuelle Kommunikationsforschung (pp. 1-22). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Metag, J., & Marcinkowski, F. (2014). Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism, 15(4), 463–481.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Science controversies. The dynamics of public disputes in the United States. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 444–456). Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage.
Niemi, M. K., & Pitkänen, V. (2017). Gendered use of experts in the media: Analysis of the gender gap in Finnish news journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 26(3), 355–368.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
O’Neill, S. J. (2013). Image matters. Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum, 49, 10–19.
Painter, J., Erviti, M. C., Fletcher, R., Howard, C., Kristiansen, S., Leon, B., … Schäfer, M. S. (2016). Something old, something new. Digital media and the coverage of climate change. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49–68.
Peters, H. P. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken [Scientific experts in public communication about technology, environment and risks]. In Friedhelm Neidhardt (Ed.), Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen (Sonderheft 34 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie) (pp. 162–190). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Structure and development of science communication research: Co-citation analysis of a developing field. Journal of Science Communication, 17(3), 1–21.
Rodriguez, L., & Asoro, R. L. (2012). Visual representations of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms in the online media. Visual Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 232–245.
Ruhrmann, G., Guenther, L., Kessler, S. H., & Milde, J. (2015). Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. Public Understanding of Science, 24(6), 681–696.
Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505.
Schäfer, M. S. (2012a). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews–Climate Change, 3(6), 527–543.
Schäfer, M. S. (2012b). Taking stock: a meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 650–663.
Schäfer, M. S. (2017). How changing media structures are affecting science news coverage. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan & D. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 51–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schäfer, M. S., Kessler, S. H., & Fähnrich, B. (2019). Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence. In A. Lessmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (eds.), Science Communication (pp. 77–104). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schäfer, M. S., Kristiansen, S., & Bonfadelli, H. (2015). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel: Relevanz, Entwicklung und Herausforderungen des Forschungsfeldes [Science communication in transition: relevance, development and challenges of the research field]. Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel, 10–42.
Schäfer, M. S., & O’Neill, S. (2017). Frame analysis in climate change communication. In M. C. Nisbet, S. S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. S. Schäfer & J. Thaker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of climate change communication, Online first. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(1), 23–42.
Summ, A., & Volpers, A. (2016). What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 775–790.
Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., … Chambers, C. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349.
Taipale, S., & Fortunati, L. (2014). Capturing methodological trends in mobile communication studies. Information, Communication & Society, 17(5), 627–642,
Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline: Road maps for the 21st century research in science communication. Journal of Science Communication 9(3), C01.
Trench, B., Bucchi, M., Amin, L., Cakmakci, G., Bankole, F., Olesk, A., … Polino, C. (2014). Global spread of science communication. In M. Bucchi & B Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 214–230). London: Routledge.
Van Gorp, B., Rommes, E., & Emons, P. (2014). From the wizard to the doubter: Prototypes of scientists and engineers in fiction and non-fiction media aimed at Dutch children and teenagers. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 646–659.
Veltri, G. A. (2013). Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 832–849.
Veltri, G. A., & Atanasova, D. (2017). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721–737.
Vestergård, G. L., & Nielsen, K. H. (2017). From the preserves of the educated elite to virtually everywhere: A content analysis of Danish science news in 1999 and 2012. Public Understanding of Science, 26(2), 220–234.
Wang, W., & Guo, L. (2018). Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle. Public Understanding of Science, 27(8), 937–951.
Wozniak, A., Lück, J., & Wessler, H. (2015). Frames, stories, and images: The advantages of a multimodal approach in comparative media content research on climate change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 469–490.
Wozniak, A., Wessler, H., & Lück, J. (2017). Who prevails in the visual framing contest about the united nations climate change conferences? Journalism Studies, 6(1), 1–20.
Wynn, J. (2017). Meltdowns in the media: Visualization of radiation risk from the printed page to the internet. In A. G. Gross (Ed.), Science and the Internet. Communicating knowledge in a digital age (pp. 191–220). London/New York: Routledge.
Zeng, J., Schäfer, M. S., & Allgaier, J. (2020). Reposting “till albert einstein is TikTok famous”: The memetic construction of science on TikTok. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3216–3247.
Zimmermann, B. M., Aebi, N., Kolb, S., Shaw, D., & Elger, B. S. (2019). Content, evaluations and influences in newspaper coverage of predictive genetic testing: A comparative media content analysis from the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 28(3), 256–274.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access Dieses Kapitel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de) veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.
Die in diesem Kapitel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.
Copyright information
© 2023 Der/die Autor(en)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kessler, S.H., Schäfer, M.S. (2023). Content Analysis in the Research Field of Science Coverage. In: Oehmer-Pedrazzi, F., Kessler, S.H., Humprecht, E., Sommer, K., Castro, L. (eds) Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse in der Kommunikationswissenschaft – Standardized Content Analysis in Communication Research. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36179-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36179-2_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-36178-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-36179-2
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)