Abstract
Science communication can be understood as all forms of communication focusing on scientific knowledge and scientific work, both within and outside institutionalized science, including its production, content, use and effects. It encompasses internal and external communication, science journalism and public relations and is thus directed to and by scientists as well as non-scientists, using one-way and dialogue-oriented forms to communicate between science and the public sphere. The present article provides an overview of content analysis of the main communicators of science communication: scientists, universities and scientific institutions and non-scientific, alternative science communicators.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Science communication can be understood as all forms of communication focusing on scientific knowledge and scientific work, both within and outside institutionalized science, including its production, content, use and effects. It encompasses internal and external communication, science journalism and public relations and is thus directed to and by scientists as well as non-scientists, using one-way and dialogue-oriented forms to communicate between science and the public sphere (Bonfadelli et al. 2017; Bubela et al. 2009; Kahan et al. 2017; Schäfer et al. 2015). Based on these definitions, various types of communicators are involved in science communication; however, not all of them share the same objectives. For some communicators, science communication is of high societal and individual relevance, aimed to foster greater public understanding of and engagement with science and scientific methods (Bubela et al. 2009; Fischhoff and Scheufele, 2013). Science communication informs citizens and provides access to scientific issues and knowledge, enables them to participate, and empowers them to form opinions that provide the basis for individual and political decisions (Burns et al. 2003). For some communicators, another important objective of science communication is to shape acceptance and create a relationship of trust (Sturgis 2014; Weingart and Guenther 2016). Moreover, some science communicators aim to contribute to the reputation management of scientists and scientific institutions and to strengthen the legitimation of publicly provided (financial) resources for science and research (acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften 2017; Gantenberg 2018; Pfenning 2012; Siggener Kreis 2013; Weitze and Heckl 2016). The objectives of science communication vary because various stakeholder groups and actors are involved; and they pursue individual goals with their respective involvement. The main communicators of science are scientists themselves, (science) journalists as well as public relations departments of universities and scientific institutions. Furthermore, there are “alternative” science communicators (Maeseele 2014), such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), activist organizations, think tanks and laypeople interested in science. Often, they are considered to be knowledgeable experts in the scientific issues that they are advocating (Fähnrich 2018a).
To improve our understanding of how science is communicated to the public is of great importance, given its impact on people’s awareness, perceptions and understanding of scientific issuesFootnote 1. Moreover, the content communicated influences people’s perception of scientific authority, for example of scientists’ competence and trustworthiness, and therefore their relationship of trust (e.g. Morton et al. 2011; Visschers 2018). However, science communication varies across different communicators and thus, the present article provides an overview of content analysis of the main communicators of science communication.
2 Common Research Designs and Combinations of Methods
Overall, research on the communicators of science is scarce. Especially organizational and alternative science communicators have hardly been addressed by research (Fähnrich 2018b; Kessler et al. 2020; Schäfer et al. 2019). Therefore, empirical data on the content of their communication is still widely missing. Previous studies on the content disseminated by science communicators focus on different analytical levels: from the communication of individuals such as scientists (micro-level) to the communication of universities, scientific institutions and organizations (meso-level) and to science journalism in general (macro-level) (Schäfer et al. 2019). The vast majority of those studies uses as a research design standardized content analysis. Among those are also input–output studies of scientific articles, university press releases and news stories (Sumner et al. 2014). Some of them have combined content analysis and cluster analysis to identify communication types (Chapleo et al. 2011; Metag and Schäfer 2017). Moreover, combinations of content analysis and surveys have been conducted (e.g. Hara et al. 2019); however, studies on science communication communicators using a combination of methods are scarce.
Only a few studies use qualitative methods such as critical discourse analysis to analyze, for instance, Facebook and Twitter posts or promotional videos on university websites (e.g. Bélanger et al. 2013; Gottschall and Saltmarsh 2016; Zhang and O'Halloran 2013). Some content analyses are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques, for example, iterative close reading of content (e.g. Kouper 2010; Lederbogen and Trebbe 2003).
Recently, studies have also relied on computational content analysis. For instance, Walter et al. (2019) conducted a Twitter network analysis and automated content analysis of scientists’ tweets using the discourse on climate change as a case study.
3 Main Constructs Employed in Content Analyses of Science Communicators’ Communication
Existing research on the communication of science communicators considers different research subjects and issues. The media coverage of scientific issues and thus what (science) journalists communicate about science receives a lot of scholarly attention (see the chapters of Kessler & Schäfer and of Mahl & Guenther in this handbook). Moreover, in the field of external scientific communication, online media and social media have become increasingly important in recent years. This is reflected in the research literature, studies have analyzed more and more science-related online communication (Schäfer 2017). First of all, these studies show that scientific actors and institutions use online communication for external communication less intensive than other actors, at least in German-speaking countries (Lederbogen and Trebbe 2003; Waters et al., 2009). Non-scientific stakeholders such as NGOs are more active. They have intensified their online communication and often influence debates on political and controversial scientific issues (Askanius and Uldam 2011; Greenberg et al. 2011; Jun 2011).
In the following, the state of the art of content analyses of three main science communicators – 1) scientists, 2) universities and scientific institutions and 3) non-scientific, alternative science communicators – will be presented:
3.1 Scientists as Science Communicators
Scientists play a major role as sources of media reporting (Lehmkuhl and Leidecker-Sandmann 2019). For instance, the German print media coverage of scientific issues often has a strong scientific character with a focus on statements of scientific experts (Summ and Volpers, 2016). They usually provide background information, opinions, and interpretations of (non-)scientific issues (Albæk 2011), even if they have not published any or only a few thematically relevant publications regarding the reported issue (Lehmkuhl and Leidecker-Sandmann 2019). In recent years, the role of scientists as external communicators has become even more important, which has been widely acknowledged (Dudo and Besley 2016; Herrmann-Giovanelli 2013; Peters et al. 2008; Peters 2013; Schäfer et al. 2015). Especially online communication such as blogs or social media platforms enable scientists to communicate directly to the public (Brossard 2013). For instance, how scientists engage and interact on Twitter (Jahng and Lee 2018; Jünger and Fähnrich 2019; Walter et al. 2019) and on Reddit (Hara et al. 2019) has been investigated by content analyses. Studies have also focused on event- and topic-related communicative behavior (Jahng and Lee 2018; Walter et al. 2019) as well as on the communication of scientists of a certain discipline (communication science: Jünger and Fähnrich 2019; climate science: Liu et al. 2015). The content and its communicative function, the degree and types of the engagement of the scientists, the relationship between scientists and users as well as the use of platform specific features such as hashtags were often analyzed. Findings indicate that scientists communicate mainly in a one-way direction and do not create dialogue with the public, but reach various actors beyond academic networks (Jahng & Lee 2018; Jünger and Fähnrich 2019; Walter et al. 2019).
Another online platform for mediating science are science blogs. They can be used for different kinds of exchange of scientific information and these blogs tend to be used by scholars to position themselves (Ashlin and Ladle 2006; Luzón 2009; Mahrt and Puschmann 2014). Studies examining the content of those blogs consider its discipline, topics, types of posts and comments, distributed information, linguistic presentation, structural features, links and genre (Kouper 2010; Luzón 2009; Mahrt and Puschmann 2014; Shema 2012) as well as interactions between authors and readers such as the number of comments to a blog post (Kouper 2010; Mahrt and Puschmann 2014). These studies have shown that blog authors communicate in a comprehensible way. They approach their topics in an everyday style and alternate explanations with personal opinions as well as humorous remarks, thus readers without a scientific background can understand the content (Kouper 2010; Mahrt and Puschmann 2014).
A further scientist-related but interpersonal type of communication is informal scholarly communication, which, among others, is used for social exchange among scientists and for the development of ideas and cooperation (Lüthje 2017). So far, scientists’ interpersonal communication has mainly been investigated by survey studies focusing on their media usage behavior. Content analyses of their communication are scarce (e.g. Goodwin et al. 2014). This may be due to the fact that informal scholarly communication often takes place in communication channels which are available to a restricted audience only.
3.2 Universities and Scientific Institutions as Science Communicators
The paradigm shift in the discussion about the relationship between science and the public – a departure from the assumption of an information and competence deficit among citizens, the so-called “deficit model” (Bauer 2016; Bucchi 2008), towards dialogical approaches in the sense of a public engagement with science (Durant 1999; Irwin and Wynne 1996) – has brought strategic science communication of professional science communicators such as media offices and public relations departments of universities into focus (Fähnrich 2018b). In recent years, universities are put under ongoing and increasing pressure to publicly legitimize their existence and to garner public support for their public base funding as well as to raise additional third-party funding (Marcinkowski et al. 2013; Metag and Schäfer 2017). As a reaction, their communication activities have increased (Entradas and Bauer 2016).
Content analyses focusing on the external communication of scientific institutions investigate how the PR activities in the form of press releases have changed over time and by which scientific disciplines or research areas institutional science PR is dominated (Serong et al. 2017). Furthermore, studies examined the representation of the research topic in both press releases and scientific journal articles and its subsequent news coverage to investigate the accuracy of science reporting (Brechman et al. 2009, 2011; Bubela and Caulfield 2004; Sumner et al. 2014, 2016; Winters et al. 2019; Yavchitz et al. 2012). The analyses of press releases’ content and the content presented in subsequent press coverage consider claims and language, for example based on criteria such as presence or absence of qualifying information, overinterpretation of partial or preliminary findings, overgeneralization or simplification and contradiction (Brechman et al. 2009). Those content analyses demonstrated that exaggeration in news stories is related to exaggeration in press releases (Sumner et al. 2014). Furthermore, the comparison of press releases and corresponding news stories shows that the information is often inconsistent and important measures of a scientific study such as funding and study limitations were omitted to a very large extent (Brechman et al. 2011; Winters et al. 2019).
Another possibility for universities and organizations to disseminate their messages directly without journalists as ‘gatekeepers’, and to address key stakeholders, among those especially (prospective) students, is online communication (Metag and Schäfer 2017, 2019). However, the online communication of scientific institutions and universities has received little attention in the research literature so far (Metag and Schäfer 2019). A popular research object in this context are websites. Their characteristics hypertextuality, multimediality and interactivity (Metag and Schäfer 2017), as well as multilingualism (Bal and Sharik 2019; Bozyigit and Akkan 2014; Chapleo et al. 2011; Lederbogen and Trebbe 2003), for example, are analyzed. Furthermore, the content of the websites (Bal and Sharik 2019; Bozyigit and Akkan 2014; Carlos and Rodrigues 2012; Chapleo et al. 2011; Else and Crookes 2015; Gottschall and Saltmarsh 2016; Greenwood 2012; Kang and Norton 2006; Lederbogen and Trebbe 2003; Metag and Schäfer 2017; Zhang and O'Halloran 2013), its portrayal of gender and ethnic diversity (Bal and Sharik 2019) and the extent to which they are information- and dialogue-oriented has been investigated (Gordon and Berhow 2009; McAllister-Spooner and Kent 2009; Shadinger 2013). Metag and Schäfer (2017) state that universities’ online communication is influenced by their structural characteristics such as the size of the university. Further findings indicate that teaching and research issues are often well communicated but other aspects like social responsibility are less visible (Chapleo et al. 2011; Else and Crookes 2015).
More recent publications focus on the social media communication of universities and scientific institutions, mainly on the social network platforms Facebook and Twitter (Bélanger et al. 2013; Forkosh-Baruch and Hershkovitz 2012; Lee and VanDyke 2015; Lee et al. 2017; Linvill et al. 2012; Lovari and Giglietto 2012; Peruta and Shields 2016; Su et al. 2017). Research has examined social media practices as well as strategies and tools used for marketing and institutional branding (Bélanger et al. 2013; Gottschall and Saltmarsh 2016; Linvill et al. 2015; Lovari and Giglietto 2012). Common categories of analyses include community-related aspects such as the number of likes and friends/subscribers as well as the content of the postings (Bélanger et al. 2013; Linvill et al. 2012, 2015). Similar to the website analyses, the interaction with followers is often analyzed regarding its informational and dialogical potential (Lee et al. 2017; Lee and VanDyke 2015; Su et al. 2017). The types of conversations and discussions universities mainly initiate are examined. For instance, attributes for posts and comments such as distribution of post types (photos, links, text statuses and videos), post and comment text, number of likes, number of comments, number of shares, number of hashtags, replies to previous comments etc. are measured (Forkosh-Baruch and Hershkovitz 2012; Lee et al., 2017; Lee and VanDyke 2015; Lovari and Giglietto 2012; Metag and Schäfer 2017; Peruta and Shields 2016; Su et al. 2017). Findings indicate that new media platforms are used for information dissemination rather than engagement (e.g. Lee et al. 2017; Lee and VanDyke 2015).
There is pressure to be more user-centered in their communication approaches and strategies not only for scientific institutions, but also for science museums. So far, little is known about how museums are using the internet to engage their audiences and if they are using it to support knowledge creation, information dissemination, informal education, public engagement and participation with science (Capriotti et al. 2016; Capriotti and Pardo Kuklinski 2012; Jensen 2013; Kelly 2010). For instance, through a quantitative content analysis, basic questions about how science museums are using Instagram have been investigated by Jarreau et al. (2019). Previous studies revealed that most science and natural history museums are using websites and social media to promote in a traditional, one-way messaging their public-facing exhibits and activities and thus miss opportunities to raise awareness of the inner workings of the museum (Capriotti et al 2016; Capriotti and Pardo Kuklinski 2012; Jarreau et al. 2019; Jensen 2013; Kelly 2010).
3.3 Non-scientific, Alternative Science Communicators
Non-scientific science communicators, such as nonprofit and non-governmental organizations, are taking advantage of the social networking popularity as well, for example to reach out to partners across countries and to enhance collaborations (Taylor et al. 2001; Yang and Taylor 2010). Similar to other science communicators’ communication, their websites and social media profiles are common research objects. Accordingly, the websites’ design and public relations features for communicating (environmental) information and relationship-building are explored. For instance, it was examined how organizations utilize their websites as a tool for media relations, donor relations, and volunteer relations (Jun 2011; Yeon et al. 2007). Further dimensions of these content analyses are the ease of interaction, the usefulness of information to the members and volunteers, to the general public and to the media as well as conservation of visitors, generation of return visits, dialogic loop, and mission statements (Reber and Kim 2006; Taylor et al. 2001; Yang and Taylor 2010). They are also taken into account to analyze the organizations’ social networking relationships with their stakeholders and their dialogical strategies regarding the use of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook (Bortree and Seltzer 2009; Cho et al. 2014; Waters et al. 2009; Waters and Jamal 2011). To provide information on nonprofit organizations’ Twitter usage, their use of specific communication tools, including following behavior, hyperlinks, hashtags, public messages, multimedia files, and retweets (Lovejoy et al. 2012) as well as additional data, such as number of people following the account and number of tweets, were recorded (Waters and Jamal 2011). To measure organizational message strategies and PR activities on Facebook, organizational disclosure, information dissemination, and involvement (Waters et al. 2009) and the numbers of likes, shares and comments on the postings were coded, for example (Cho et al. 2014).
Compared to analyses of the communication of non-profit organizations, the communication of think tanks has been overlooked yet. For instance, a study of Castillo-Esparcia et al. (2015) examines and assesses the performance of think tanks in social media, measuring the dimensions visibility, reach, interactivity and engagement.
Findings reveal that NGO websites are mostly used for educational rather than activation communication (Yang and Taylor 2010). Advocacy groups may be missing opportunities to respond to stakeholder feedback and information needs (Bortree and Seltzer 2009). Dialogic features are rather available for the general public than for journalists (Reber and Kim 2006).
4 Research Desiderata
Although research on science communication has grown internationally in importance and in numbers of publications during the last years which indicates an institutionalization of the field (Kessler et al. 2020; Rauchfleisch and Schäfer 2018), the communication of science communicators still offers great potential for future research.
Organizational communication from universities or scientific institutions is increasing and alternative actors like environmental activists are becoming important science communicators, but have not yet received much attention (Entradas and Bauer 2016; Fähnrich 2018a; Schäfer et al. 2019). Furthermore, studies on the interactions among different science communicators, for example between scientists and media officers of universities, could enrich the research literature. Such research would contribute to the knowledge about internal communication and thus about communicative processes of knowledge production and dissemination, which has so far been hardly addressed from both practice and research (Buchholz 2019).
Another gap which requires more scholarly attention is university communication in general (Metag and Schäfer 2017). Studies often examine only certain communication channels such as the website or social media platforms used by institutional science communicators and do not consider underlying communication concepts and their aims (Lovari and Giglietto 2012). Usually, in their analyses they focus on a specific point in time. Therefore, there are hardly any long-term analyses which could identify changes in university communication (Zhang and O'Halloran 2013).
Moreover, comparative studies across countries have not been conducted yet (except: Metag and Schäfer 2017). In general, the content analyses of the communication of universities and scientific institutions focus on the practical applicability of their findings and often miss theoretical foundations. They can only be generalized to a limited extent (Metag and Schäfer 2019). Therefore, Metag und Schäfer (2019) suggest to combine content analysis with structural data of the universities and survey data of communication departments to explore aims, concepts and developments more deeply. Overall, the research field would also profit from studies which do not only analyze the content, but also its effects on recipients.
Another future challenge is to research new forms of science communication, such as science museums, science slams, science festivals or science podcasts. They have become a popular, low-threshold form through which to engage the public with science and scientists (MacKenzie 2019; Ocobock and Hawley 2020). To better understand their efficacy and their effects, for instance regarding enhancements on public understanding and knowledge, scientific literacy or perception of science, the communicated content and the communication style within such formats should be taken into account.
Content analyses on how science communicators – the key players in bridging science and the public – communicate about science may help to develop appropriate ways and evaluation methods of effective science communication, and therefore studies on science communicators deserve further attention in future research.
Relevant Variables in DOCA – Database of Variables for Content Analysis
Public engagement of scientists: https://doi.org/10.34778/1h
Characteristics of university websites: https://doi.org/10.34778/1f
Dialogical strategies of science communicators: https://doi.org/10.34778/1g
Notes
- 1.
The chapter "Content Analysis in the Research Field of Science Coverage" by Kessler and Schäfer in this handbook provides an overview of media content analysis in science communication research on news especially as journalistic content.
References
Acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2017). Social Media und digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation. Analyse und Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Chancen und Risiken in der Demokratie [Social Media and digital science communication. Analysis and recommendations for managing chances and risks in a democracy]. München.
Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335–348.
Ashlin, A., & Ladle, R. J. (2006). Science communication. Environmental science adrift in the blogosphere. Science, 312(5771), 201.
Askanius, T., & Uldam, J. (2011). Online social media for radical politics: Climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(1/2), 69.
Bal, T. L., & Sharik, T. L. (2019). Web content analysis of university forestry and related natural resources landing webpages in the United States in relation to student and faculty diversity. Journal of Forestry, 117(4), 379–397.
Bauer, M. W. (2016). Results of the essay competition on the ‘deficit concept’. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 398–399.
Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2013). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(1), 14–29.
Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomberg, M., & Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Das Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation [Science communication as a research field]. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 3–14). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.
Bozyigit, S., & Akkan, E. (2014). Linking universities to the target market via web sites: A content analysis of Turkish private universities’ web sites. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 486–493.
Brechman, J. M., Lee, C.‑J., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in lay press. Science Communication, 30(4), 453–474.
Brechman, J. M., Lee, C.‑J., & Cappella, J. (2011). Distorting genetic research about cancer: From bench science to press release to published news. The Journal of Communication, 61(3), 496–513.
Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14096–14101.
Bubela, T. M., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., . . . Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518.
Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. A. (2004). Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L’association Medicale Canadienne, 170(9), 1399–1407.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–67). London: Routledge.
Buchholz, U. (2019). Interne Hochschulkommunikation [Internal communication of universities]. In B. Fähnrich, J. Metag, S. Post, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation (pp. 141–164). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Burns, T. W., O‘Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202.
Capriotti, P., Carretón, C., & Castillo, A. (2016). Testing the level of interactivity of institutional websites: From museums 1.0 to museums 2.0. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), 97–104.
Capriotti, P., & Pardo Kuklinski, H. (2012). Assessing dialogic communication through the Internet in Spanish museums. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 619–626.
Carlos, V. S., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2012). Web site quality evaluation in Higher Education institutions. Procedia Technology, 5, 273–282.
Castillo-Esparcia, A., Almansa-Martínez, A., & Smolak-Lozano, E. (2015). East European think tanks in social media – towards the model of evaluation of effective communication/PR strategies: Case study analysis. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 7(2), 231–250.
Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., & Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25–46.
Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567.
Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PloS One, 11(2).
Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.
Else, F. C., & Crookes, P. A. (2015). The online presence of teaching and learning within Australian university websites. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(4), 363–373.
Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. M. (2016). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771–788.
Fähnrich, B. (2018a). Digging deeper? Muddling through? How environmental activists make sense and use of science — an exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication, 17(03).
Fähnrich, B. (2018b). Einflussreich, aber wenig beachtet? Eine Meta-Studie zum Stand der deutschsprachigen Forschung über strategische Kommunikation von Wissenschaftsorganisationen [Influential, but less noticed? A meta-study on the state of research on strategic communication of science organizations]. Publizistik, 63(3), 407–426.
Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. Introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14031–14032.
Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. The internet and higher education, 15(1), 58–68.
Gantenberg, J. (2018). Wissenschaftskommunikation in Forschungsverbünden. Zwischen Ansprüchen und Wirklichkeit [Science communication in research partnerships. Between expectations and reality]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Goodwin, S., Jeng, W., & He, D. (2014). Changing communication on researchgate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.
Gordon, J., & Berhow, S. (2009). University websites and dialogic features for building relationships with potential students. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 150–152.
Gottschall, K., & Saltmarsh, S. (2016). ‘You’re not just learning it, you’re living it!: ’ Constructing the ‘good life’ in Australian university online promotional videos. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(5), 768–781.
Greenberg, J., Knight, G., & Westersund, E. (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 65–82.
Greenwood, G. (2012). Examining the presence of social media on university web sites. Journal of College Admission, 216, 24–28. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.919.3565&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Hara, N., Abbazio, J., & Perkins, K. (2019). An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. PloS One, 14(5).
Herrmann-Giovanelli, I. (2013). Wissenschaftskommunikation aus der Sicht von Forschenden [Science communication from the perspective of the researchers]. Konstanz: UVK.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: University Press.
Jahng, M. R., & Lee, N. (2018). When scientists tweet for social changes: Dialogic communication and collective mobilization strategies by flint water study scientists on Twitter. Science Communication, 40(1), 89–108.
Jarreau, P. B., Dahmen, N. S., & Jones, E. (2019). Instagram and the science museum: A missed opportunity for public engagement. Journal of Science Communication, 18(02).
Jensen, B. (2013). Instagram as cultural heritage: User participation, historical documentation, and curating in museums and archives through social media. 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage) (pp. 311–314). IEEE.
Jun, J. (2011). How climate change organizations utilize websites for public relations. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 245–249.
Jünger, J., & Fähnrich, B. (2019). Does really no one care?: Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 7(2).
Kahan, D. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). Introduction: Why science communication? In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2006). Colleges and universities’ use of the World Wide Web: A public relations tool for the digital age. Public Relations Review, 32(4), 426–428.
Kelly, L. (2010). How web 2.0 is changing the nature of museum work. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(4), 405–410.
Kessler, S. H., Fähnrich, B., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science communication research in the German-speaking countries: A content analysis of conference abstracts. Studies in Communication Sciences, 19(2), 243–251.
Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1).
Lederbogen, U., & Trebbe, J. (2003). Promoting science on the web. Science Communication, 24(3), 333–352.
Lee, N. M., & VanDyke, M. S. (2015). Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science. Science Communication, 37(4), 533–541.
Lee, N. M., VanDyke, M. S., & Cummins, R. G. (2017). A missed opportunity?: NOAA’s use of social media to communicate climate science. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 274–283.
Lehmkuhl, M., & Leidecker-Sandmann, M. (2019). „Visible scientists revisited“: Zum Zusammenhang von wissenschaftlicher Reputation und der Präsenz wissenschaftlicher Experten in der Medienberichterstattung über Infektionskrankheiten [“Visible scientists revisited“. On the relationship between scientific reputation and the public presence of scientific experts in mass media coverage of infectious diseases]. Publizistik, 64(4), 479–502.
Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638.
Linvill, D. L., Rowlett, J. T., & Kolind, M. M. (2015). Academic Pinstitution: Higher education’s use of Pinterest for relationship marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 14(4), 287–300.
Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., Stoutenborough, J. W., & Robinson, S. (2015). Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies. Climatic Change, 131(4), 487–503.
Lovari, A., & Giglietto, F. (2012). Social media and Italian universities: An empirical study on the adoption and use of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.
Lüthje, C. (2017). Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation [Internal informal science communication]. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 109–124). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Luzón, M. J. (2009). Scholarly hyperwriting: The function of links in academic weblogs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 75–89.
MacKenzie, L. E. (2019). Science podcasts: Analysis of global production and output from 2004 to 2018. Royal Society Open Science, 6(1), 180932.
Maeseele, P. (2014). NGOs and GMOs. Javnost - the Public, 16(4), 55–72.
Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13(03).
Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S., & Friedrichsmeier, A. (2013). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public. Science Communication, 36(1), 56–80.
McAllister-Spooner, S. M., & Kent, M. L. (2009). Dialogic public relations and resource dependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 220–239.
Metag, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Hochschulen zwischen Social Media-Spezialisten und Online-Verweigerern.: Eine Analyse der Online-Kommunikation promotionsberechtigter Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [Universities between social media specialists and holdouts. An analysis of universities’ online communication in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland]. Studies in Communication | Media, 6(2), 160–195.
Metag, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2019). Hochschulkommunikation in Online-Medien und Social Media [Universities’ communication in online and social media]. In B. Fähnrich, J. Metag, S. Post, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation (pp. 363-391). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103–109.
Ocobock, C., & Hawley, P. (2020). Science on tap: Effective public engagement or preaching to the choir? Journal of Science Communication, 19(01).
Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2016). Social media in higher education: Understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 131–143.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14102–14109.
Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., Cheveigné, S. de, Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface. Science Communication, 30(2), 266–276.
Pfenning, U. (2012). Zur Evaluation von Modellprojekten zur Wissenschaftskommunikation [On the evaluation of model projects for science communication]. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert, & H. Münder (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 341–352). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
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(03).
Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 313–333.
Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation Online [Science communication online]. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 275–293). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
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, Boston: 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]. In H. Bonfadelli, M. S. Schäfer, & S. Kristiansen (Eds.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (pp. 10–42). Köln: von Halem.
Serong, J., Koppers, L., Luschmann, E., Molina Ramirez, A., Kersting, K., Rahnenführer, J., & Wormer, H. (2017). Öffentlichkeitsorientierung von Wissenschaftsinstitutionen und Wissenschaftsdisziplinen [Public orientation of scientific institutions and scientific disciplines]. Publizistik, 62(2), 153–178.
Shadinger, D. (2013). Dialogistic presence on community college websites in nine megastates. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(12), 925–935.
Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS One, 7(5), e35869.
Siggener Kreis (2013). Siggener Denkanstoß 2013 – Zur Zukunft der Wissenschaftskommunikation [Food for thought from Siggen 2013 - on the future of science communication]. Retrieved from https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/projekte/siggener-kreis/.
Sturgis, P. (2014). On the limits of public engagement for the governance of emerging technologies. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 38–42.
Su, L. Y.‑F., Scheufele, D. A., Bell, L., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2017). Information-sharing and community-building: Exploring the use of Twitter in science public relations. Science Communication, 39(5), 569–597.
Summ, A., & Volpers, A.‑M. (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., Bott, L., Adams, R., ... Chambers, C. D. (2016). Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PloS One, 11(12).
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 (Clinical Research Ed.), 349.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284.
Visschers, V. H. M. (2018). Public perception of uncertainties within climate change science. Risk Analysis, 38(1), 43–55.
Walter, S., Lörcher, I., & Brüggemann, M. (2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 696–712.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.
Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324.
Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05).
Weitze, M.‑D., & Heckl, W. M. (2016). Wissenschaftskommunikation - Schlüsselideen, Akteure, Fallbeispiele [Science communication - key ideas, players, and case studies]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Winters, M., Larsson, A., Kowalski, J., & Sundberg, C. J. (2019). The association between quality measures of medical university press releases and their corresponding news stories-Important information missing. PloS One, 14(6).
Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2010). Relationship-building by Chinese ENGOs’ websites: Education, not activation. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 342–351.
Yavchitz, A., Boutron, I., Bafeta, A., Marroun, I., Charles, P., Mantz, J., & Ravaud, P. (2012). Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: A cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 9(9).
Yeon, H. M., Choi, Y., & Kiousis, S. (2007). Interactive communication features on nonprofit organizations’ webpages for the practice of excellence in public relations. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(4), 61–83.
Zhang, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: University websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468–485.
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
Wicke, N. (2023). Content Analysis in the Research Field of Science Communication. 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_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36179-2_35
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)