Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science

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

Abstract

Media have become an important arena of and actor in the co-evolution of science and society. Medialization re-shapes the professional and public identities of scientists, who are increasingly expected to consider communication activities as part of their professional role. Our interest in this contribution lies in tracing how medialization impinges on key processes and symbolic orders within research. The central thesis of this chapter is that medialization does not only affect the context in which research happens, such as its financial organisation or regulation, but that media have become deeply involved in shaping scientists’ epistemic living spaces. Our approach starts from a person-centred perspective, and asks what consequences the proliferation of communication activities and of media representations of research has for academic scientists and their ways of living and working in research. How does scientists’ increasing engagement in communication activities feed back into research and influence their identities and practices as scientists? How do these communication activities affect the social and symbolic orders that define what it means to do research today? And how do they both tacitly govern research environments as well as researchers’ self-understanding? By starting from these questions about how researchers’ ways of living and working in science are affected by medialization on a micro-level we aim to work towards conclusions about the more systemic effects of medialization, both in science as well as in its relation to other societal actors and systems.

Keywords

Life Science Scientific Practice Scientific Career Senior Scientist Boundary Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on empirical work done in several research projects – for details please see the section on material and methods. The authors acknowledge the contribution of all colleagues involved in these projects, and would like to thank the editors and reviewers of this volume as well as the participants of the yearbook conference in Bielefeld for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Martha Kenney for the final language editing.

References

  1. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Felt, U. (2000). Why should the public “understand” science? A historical perspective on aspects of the public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes and C. V. Grote (eds.), Between understanding and trust. The public, science and technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 7–38.Google Scholar
  3. Felt, U. (2009). Knowing and living in academic research. In U. Felt (ed.), Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneities in European research cultures. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, pp. 17–39.Google Scholar
  4. Felt, U. and M. Fochler (2010). Machineries for making publics. Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felt, U. and T. Stöckelová (2009). Modes of ordering and boundaries that matter in academic knowledge production. In U. Felt (ed.), Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneities in European research cultures. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, pp. 41–126.Google Scholar
  6. Felt, U., M. Fochler, and R. Müller (2010a). Career and/or biography? Essential tensions in knowing and living in contemporary academic research. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Felt, U., L. Sigl, and V. Wöhrer (2010b). Multiple ways of being together alone – A comparative analysis of collective and individual dimensions of academic research in two epistemic fields. Paper submitted to “Science and Public Policy”.Google Scholar
  8. Felt, U., et al. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report to the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science. Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Garforth, L. and A. Cervinková (2009). Times and trajectories in academic knowledge production. In U. Felt (ed.), Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneities in European research cultures. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, pp. 129–225.Google Scholar
  10. Hakala, J. (2009). Socialization of junior researchers in new academic research environments: Two case studies from Finland. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge. The Co-Production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own. Public images of science 1910–1955. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nelkin, D. (1994). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Peters, H. P., et al. (2008). Science Communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rödder, S. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science. A story from the ‘book of life’. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life. A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Strathern, M. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in audit, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(9), 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2005). Academic nostalgia. A narrative approach to academic work. Human Relations, 58(5), 555–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ylijoki, O.-H. and H. Mäntylä (2003). Conflicting time perspectives in academic work. Time & Society, 12(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Vienna
  2. 2.Department of Social Studies of ScienceUniversity of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations