Abstract
This chapter discusses changes in the professional role of scientists as one aspect of the medialization of science. The chapter specifically addresses the interrelation of internal norms that govern scientific behaviour and external expectations that scientists are exposed to in the course of media presence. Based on 55 in-depth interviews with media visible and not visible genome researchers in Germany, France, the UK and the USA, the chapter investigates the impact of media attention on a scientist’s personal role preferences and asks for the tolerance that communication as a “visible scientist” can expect from the peer community. The genome case provides evidence that it is not possible to establish the role of the visible scientist without introducing a systematic tension to the reputation autonomy of the peers. The data show deep ambivalence towards highly visible scientists. This ambivalence is characterised in detail and several strategies of ambivalence management are derived from the data. The chapter shows that the role of the visible scientist is occupied by a minority of scientists, with the main incentive to secure public and private research funding. On the basis of the analysis of this high profile case, one can conclude that the view that visibility is now built into the role expectation of every professional scientist, including being eligible for reputation, is policy talk rather than an empirical fact.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This sets the sociological concept of ambivalence apart from its use in psychology where it refers to ambivalent feelings of an individual. A psychological ambivalence, however, may be rooted in a structurally induced conflict. A role occupant’s mixed feelings can thus be revealing of a tension built into a particular social role (for an example, see Section 8.4.1).
- 3.
Merton himself develops his analysis with regard to influences of the political system on science in the 1930s.
- 4.
The term “visible scientist” was introduced by Rae Goodell (1977). In this paper, the analytical concept of visibility as public communication, i.e., communication with audiences other than the scientific community, is operationalised as visibility in the mass media, in line with the argument that these media form an important resource for the public legitimacy of science in modern democracies (see Chapter 1). The role of the visible scientist thus encompasses intellectuals and media experts. This distinction is not relevant for my concern; it would be, however, if one wanted to compare the media visibility of life scientists with that of social scientists, for instance.
- 5.
“If you nowadays try to hold against biologists that one of their discoveries is politically right or left, catholic or not catholic, you will provoke open exhilaration, but this has not always been the case” (Bourdieu 1998: 20, my translation). It is obvious that scientific disciplines differ in the degree of exhilaration when facing such allegations.
- 6.
For my interest in individual role preferences the focus on the academic role-set is promising because their role-bundle includes teaching and self-administration and is thus inherently more complex than that of a scientist who researches in a private firm.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
For the empirical study, a scientist was a priori classified as “visible” if he had repeated media prominence in more than one context (a context being a journal publication, etc.). The sample was composed of visible and not visible scientists from each of the four countries; the classification was based on a literature review and verified by a triangulation with quantitative data (Rödder 2009b).
- 10.
The expert interview situation is itself a kind of boundary system rather than peer communication. This methodical weakness was dealt with both on the level of data acquisition and data analysis. The interview was set up as research communication on the issue of visible scientists, and reconstructive analysis was applied in looking for coherence in the interview data (for details on the methodology and a validity assessment, see Rödder 2009b).
- 11.
The first digit represents the number of the interview, the second digit the coded sequence. Quotes in German and French were translated by the author.
- 12.
In all three dimensions of meaning, the interviewees focus on the point emphasised by the differentiation theory perspective that we propose in this volume: the difference in meaning between scientific and mass media communication, i.e., between an orientation towards “truth” and an orientation towards news values (see Chapter 1).
- 13.
For a discussion of hierarchies in the role-set, see also Merton (1957: 113f).
- 14.
The reputation autonomy of the scientific community is safeguarded by all of the interviewees, but beyond this common ground, types of scientists can be differentiated on the basis of their construction of the public and their willingness to adapt their communication: the geek, the missionary, the advocate of knowledge and the public scientist (Rödder 2009b).
- 15.
Merton’s ambivalence was found in the interview data as well: “Well, I am not really after prizes, but, on the other hand, to get one is not bad at all” (42:110). Further ambivalences are also present: for example, the tension between different role-sets of a person such as being torn between the professional role and the role as a family member. The relation of the professional and the family role shows that a structural dominance of the professional role is rather widespread amongst scientists in general and, in particular, amongst geek-type scientists. This allows to speak of a “hyperinclusion” in science, a phenomenon first noticed with regard to professional athletes (Göbel and Schmidt 1998). This tension, however, is not a sociological ambivalence in the narrow sense of the term, but a “derivative type” (Merton and Barber 1976: 9).
References
Act on Universities (2003). Rep. No. Act no. 403 of 28 May 2003, English translation. Kopenhagen.
Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 1175–1199.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK.
Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.
de Cheveigné, S. (1997). La science médiatisée: Les contradictions des scientifiques. In S. de Cheveigné (ed.), Sciences et médias. Paris: CNRS Éditions, pp. 121–133.
Elmer, C., F. Badenschier, and H. Wormer (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. J & MC Quarterly, 85(4), 878–893.
Gerhards, J. and M. S. Schäfer (2009). Two normative models of science in public. Human genome sequencing in German and US print media. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 437–451.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Göbel, M. and J. F. K. Schmidt (1998). Inklusion/Exklusion: Karriere, Probleme und Differenzierungen eines systemtheoretischen Begriffspaars. Soziale Systeme, 1, 87–117.
Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Goodstein, D. and J. Woodward (1999). Inside science. The American Scholar. Magazine of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.
Gregory, J. and S. Miller (1998). Science in public. Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press.
Hilgartner, S. (1995). The human genome project. In S. Jasanoff et al. (eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 302–315.
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822), 860–921.
Kalleberg, R. (2000). Universities: Complex bundle institutions and the projects of enlightenment. Comparative Social Research, 19, 219–255.
Klima, R. (1969). Einige Widersprüche im Rollen-Set der Soziologen. In B. Schäfers (ed.), Thesen zur Kritik der Soziologie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 80–95.
Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288–311.
LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own. Public images of science 1910–1955. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315(5809), 161.
Luhmann, N. (1992). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1999 [1964]). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Merton, R. K. (1957). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106–120.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. ([1942] 1973). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278.
Merton, R. K. (1976). The ambivalence of scientists. In R. K. Merton (ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: The Free Press, pp. 32–55.
Merton, R. K. and E. Barber (1976). Sociological ambivalence. In R. K. Merton (ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: The Free Press, pp. 3–31.
Mulkay, M. J. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4–5), 637–656.
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.
Nielsen, K. H., C. R. Kjaer, and J. Dahlgaard (2007). Scientists and science communication: A Danish survey. Journal of Science Communication, 6(1), 1–12.
Parsons, T. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: The Free Press.
Peters, H. P., et al. (2008). The medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimation and political relevance. In B. Schiele et al. (eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 71–92.
Restivo, S. (1995). The theory landscape in science studies: Sociological traditions. In S. Jasanoff et al. (eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 95–110.
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.
Schäfer, M. S. (2008). From public understanding to public engagement. An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505.
Stehr, N. (1978). The ethos of science revisited. Social and cognitive norms. In J. Gaston (ed.), Sociology of science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 172–196.
Stent, G. S. (1968). What they are saying about Honest Jim. Quarterly Review of Biology, 43(2), 179–184.
Stichweh, R. (1984). Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Stichweh, R. (2005). Inklusion in Funktionssysteme der modernen Gesellschaft. In R. Stichweh (ed.), Inklusion und Exklusion. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, pp. 13–44.
Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft (1999). Dialog Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. PUSH Symposium. Essen.
Strauss, A. L. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Streier, E.-M. (2006). Wissenschaft in einer Pressestelle I: Vermittler, Vermarkter und manchmal Verkäufer. In H. Wormer (ed.), Die Wissensmacher. Profile und Arbeitsfelder von Wissenschaftsredaktionen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 270–283.
Tacke, V. (1997). Systemrationalisierung an ihren Grenzen – Organisationsgrenzen und Funktionen von Grenzstellen in Wirtschaftsorganisationen. In G. Schreyögg and J. Sydow (eds.), Managementforschung 7. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 1–44.
The Royal Society (1985). The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Venter, J. C., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291(5507), 1304–1351.
Watson, J. D. ([1968] 2001). The Double Helix. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Velbrück: Weilerswist.
Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1(1).
Yoxen, E. (1985). Speaking out about competition. In T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds.), Expository science. Forms and functions of popularisation. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook IX, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–181.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank André Kieserling and Veronika Tacke for valuable comments on a draft of this chapter.
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
Rödder, S. (2012). The Ambivalence of Visible Scientists. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8
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)