Advertisement

Visuelle Wissenschaftskommunikation

Zur visuellen Darstellung von Wissenschaft, ihrer Produktion, Nutzung und Wirkung
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Produktion von Bildern in der Wissenschaftskommunikation sowie mit deren Inhalten und Wirkungen. Dabei wird unterschieden zwischen wissenschaftlichen Bildern und Bildern von WissenschaftlerInnen und Wissenschaft sowie zwischen an die Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft und an die breitere Öffentlichkeit bzw. ein Laienpublikum gerichteten Wissenschaftsbilder. Manche Bilder werden so prominent in der öffentlichen Kommunikation verwendet, dass sie ikonischen Status erreichen, wie etwa der Eisbär auf der Eisscholle. Wissenschaftsbilder können im Idealfall bei RezipientInnen Aufmerksamkeit erwecken und zu einem besseren Verständnis von Wissenschaft führen. Der Beitrag bietet einen Überblick über den Forschungsstand, der sehr heterogen ist und von gut erforschten Feldern, wie der visuellen Klimawandelkommunikation, bis zu weniger erforschten Bereichen, in denen es bestenfalls Einzelfallstudien gibt, reicht.

Schlüsselwörter

Visuelle Wissenschaftskommunikation Public Understanding of Science Visuelles Framing Klimawandelbilder Wirkungen visueller Darstellungen Strategische Kommunikation 

Literatur

  1. Adelmann, R., Hennig, J., & Hessler, M. (2008). Visuelle Wissenskommunikation in Astronomie und Nanotechnologie. Zur epistemischen Produktivität und den Grenzen von Bildern. In F. Neidhardt, P. Weingart, R. Mayntz & U. Wengenroth (Hrsg.), Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer. Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit = Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer. Zur Einleitung (S. 41–74). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Alcíbar, M. (2017). Information visualisation as a resource for popularising the technical-biomedical aspects of the last Ebola virus epidemic: The case of the Spanish reference press. Public Understanding of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517702047.
  3. Allgaier, J. (2013). On the shoulders of YouTube. Science in music videos. Science Communication, 35(2), 266–275.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ancker, J. S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., & Starren, J. B. (2006). Design features of graphs in health risk communication. A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 13(6), 608–618.  https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arsenault, D. J., Smith, L. D., & Beauchamp, E. A. (2006). Visual inscriptions in the scientific hierarchy. Science Communication, 27(3), 376–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005285030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballantyne, A. G., Wibeck, V., & Neset, T.-S. (2016). Images of climate change – A pilot study of young people’s perceptions of ICT-based climate visualization. Climatic Change, 134(1–2), 73–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1533-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrow, J. (2009). Cosmic imagery. Key images in the history of science. New York: W. W. Norton & Co Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, M., & Gregory, J. (2007). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In M. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Hrsg.), Journalism, science and society. Science communication between news and public relations (S. 33–52). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomberg, M., & Schäfer, M. S. (Hrsg.). (2017). Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  10. Bucchi, M., & Saracino, B. (2016). Visual science literacy. Science Communication, 38(6), 812–819.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016677833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bucher, H.-J., & Niemann, P. (2015). Medialisierung der Wissenschaftskommunikation: Vom Vortrag zur multimodalen Präsentation. In M. S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen & H. Bonfadelli (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (S. 68–101). von Halem Verlag: Köln.Google Scholar
  12. Buehl, J. (2014). Toward an ethical rhetoric of the digital scientific image. Learning from the era when science met photoshop. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(3), 184–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2014.914783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman, D. A., Corner, A., Webster, R., & Markowitz, E. M. (2016). Climate visuals. A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environmental Change, 41, 172–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. The American Statistician, 38(4), 261–296.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, R. J., Schriger, D. L., & Close, R. J. (2002). Graphical literacy. The quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40(3), 317–322.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2002.127327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, J. R., & Pezzullo, P. C. (2016). Environmental communication and the public sphere (4. Aufl.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Dahmen, N. S. (2009). Snowflake white and politically right. Photographic framing in news media coverage of stem cell research. Visual Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 18–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15551390802620498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 189–216.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025006310503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doyle, J. (2007). Picturing the clima(c)tic. Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Science as Culture, 16(2), 129–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duan, R., Zwickle, A., & Takahashi, B. (2017). A construal-level perspective of climate change images in US newspapers. Climatic Change, 142(3–4), 345–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1945-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing. Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franzblau, L. E., & Chung, K. C. (2012). Graphs, tables, and figures in scientific publications: The good, the bad, and how not to be the latter. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 37(3), 591–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.12.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geipel, A. (2018). Wissenschaft@YouTube. In E. Lettkemann, R. Wilke & H. Knoblauch (Hrsg.), Knowledge in Action. Neue Formen der Kommunikation in der Wissensgesellschaft (S. 137–163). Springer VS: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  24. Geise, S., & Lobinger, K. (Hrsg.). (2013). Visual Framing: Perspektiven und Herausforderungen der Visuellen Kommunikationsforschung. Herbert von Halem Verlag: Köln.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (2000). Reading between the Photographs: The Influence of Incidental Pictorial Information on Issue Perception. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 355–366.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700209
  26. Gough, P. (2017). From the analytical to the artistic. A review of literature on information visualization. Leonardo, 50(1), 47–52.  https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grittmann, E. (2013). Visual Frames – Framing Visuals. Zum Zusammenhang von Diskurs, Frame und Bild in den Medien am Beispiel des Klimawandeldiskurses. In S. Geise & K. Lobinger (Hrsg.), Visual Framing. Perspektiven und Herausforderungen der Visuellen Kommunikationsforschung (S. 95–116). Herbert von Halem Verlag: Köln.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, A. (2016). Methods for assessing visual images and depictions of climate change. In M. Nisbet, S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. S. Schäfer & J. Thaker (Hrsg.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hansen, A., & Machin, D. (2008). Visually branding the environment. Climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Studies, 10(6), 777–794.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608098200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, A., & Machin, D. (2013). Researching visual environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 7(2), 151–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.785441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016). The impact of climate change–related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Science Communication, 38(4), 415–441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herring, J., VanDyke, M. S., Cummins, R. G., & Melton, F. (2015). Communicating local climate risks online through an interactive data visualization. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 90–105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1176946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hertz, B., van Woerkum, C., & Kerkhof, P. (2015). Why do scholars use PowerPoint the way they do? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 273–291.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615589171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hüppauf, B., & Weingart, P. (2009). Wissenschaftsbilder – Bilder der Wissenschaft. In B.-R. Hüppauf & P. Weingart (Hrsg.), Frosch und Frankenstein. Bilder als Medium der Popularisierung von Wissenschaft (S. 11–44). Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Isberner, M.-B., Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H., & Schnotz, W. (2013). Comprehending conflicting science-related texts. Graphs as plausibility cues. Instructional Science, 41(5), 849–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keane, R., & Smith, J. W. (2015). Information presentation of coastal morphological change. Potential implications for perceptions of climate change impacts. Coastal Management, 43(6), 651–667.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1088762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keelan, J., Pavri-Garcia, V., Tomlinson, G., & Wilson, K. (2007). YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. JAMA, 298(21), 2482–2484.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.21.2482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kessler, S. H., Reifegerste, D., & Guenther, L. (2016). Die Evidenzkraft von Bildern in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. In G. Ruhrmann, S. H. Kessler & L. Guenther (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un-)Sicherheit (S. 171–192). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Knieper, T., & Müller, M. G. (Hrsg.). (2003). Authentizität und Inszenierung von Bilderwelten. Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  40. Krohn, R. (1991). Why are graphs so central in science? Biology and Philosophy, 6(2), 181–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02426837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2015). Putting environmental infographics center stage. Science Communication, 37(1), 6–33.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014555997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leinfelder, R. (2014). Abschlussbericht zum BMBF-geförderten Projekt: „Das WBGU-Transformations-Gutachten als Wissenschaftscomic: Ein Kommunikationsprojekt zu alternativen Wissenstransferansätzen für komplexe Zukunftsthemen“.Google Scholar
  43. Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences. The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leivas Pozzer, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. León, B., & Erviti, M. C. (2015). Science in pictures. Visual representation of climate change in Spain’s television news. Public Understanding of Science, 24(2), 183–199.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513500196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 30(4), 195–232.Google Scholar
  47. Lin, S.-F., Lin, H.-s., Lee, L., & Yore, L. D. (2014). Are science comics a good medium for science communication? The case for public learning of nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(3), 276–294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.941040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linden, S. L.van der, Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change. Plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change, 126(1–2), 255–262.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4.
  49. Lohoff, M. (2008). Wissenschaft im Bild: Performative Aspekte des Bildes in Prozessen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisgewinnung und -vermittlung. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen.Google Scholar
  50. Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2010). Was heißt „Medialisierung“? Autonomiebeschränkung oder Ermöglichung von Politik durch Massenmedien? In K. Arnold, H.-U. Wagner, C. Classen, S. Kinnebrock & E. Lerch (Hrsg.), Von der Politisierung der Medien zur Medialisierung des Politischen? Zum Verhältnis von Medien, Öffentlichkeit und Politik im 20. Jahrhundert (S. 51–76). Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl.Google Scholar
  51. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S., & Friedrichsmeier, A. (2013). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public. An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56–80.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013494022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McInerny, G. J., Chen, M., Freeman, R., Gavaghan, D., Meyer, M., Rowland, F., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Stefaner, M., Tessarolo, G., & Hortal, J. (2014). Information visualisation for science and policy: Engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(3), 148–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (2. Aufl.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Meisner, M. S., & Takahashi, B. (2015). The nature of time. How the covers of the world’s most widely read weekly news magazine visualize environmental affairs. In A. Hansen & D. Machin (Hrsg.), Visual Environmental Communication (S. 103–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Metag, J. (2017). Rezeption und Wirkung öffentlicher Wissenschaftskommunikation. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg & M. S. Schäfer (Hrsg.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (S. 251–274). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Metag, J., Schäfer, M. S., Füchslin, T., Barsuhn, T., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2016a). Perceptions of climate change imagery. Science Communication, 38(2), 197–227.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Metag, J., Schäfer, M. S., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2016b). Eisbär, Gletscher und Windräder – Die Wahrnehmung von Klimawandel-Bildern in Deutschland. In G. Ruhrmann, S. H. Kessler & L. Guenther (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un-)Sicherheit (S. 143–170). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, T. (1996). Visual perception. The role of visuals in academic articles and popularizations. Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 15(3), 22–35.Google Scholar
  60. Miller, A., & LaPoe, V. (2016). Visual agenda-setting, emotion, and the BP oil disaster. Visual Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2015.1128335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mogull, S. A., & Stanfield, C. T. (2015). Current use of visuals in scientific communication. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference PRO COMM 2015 (S. 1–6). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  62. Morcillo, J. M., Czurda, K., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016). Typologies of the popular science web video. Journal of Science Communication, 15(04), 1–32.Google Scholar
  63. Nicholson-Cole, S. A. (2005). Representing climate change futures. A critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 255–273.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Neill, S. J. (2013). Image matters. Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum, 49, 10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O’Neill, S. J. (2016). Engaging with climate change imagery. In M. Nisbet, S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. S. Schäfer & J. Thaker (Hrsg.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear won’t do it. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Neill, S. J., & Smith, N. (2014). Climate change and visual imagery. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249.Google Scholar
  68. O’Neill, S. J., Boykoff, M., Niemeyer, S., & Day, S. A. (2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 413–421.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pan, X., Yan, E., & Hua, W. (2016). Science communication and dissemination in different cultures. An analysis of the audience for TED videos in China and abroad. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1473–1486.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pansegrau, P. (2009). Zwischen Fakt und Fiktion – Stereotypen von Wissenschaftlern in Spielfilmen. In B.-R. Hüppauf & P. Weingart (Hrsg.), Frosch und Frankenstein. Bilder als Medium der Popularisierung von Wissenschaft (S. 373–386). Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  71. Pauwels, L. (2000). Taking the visual turn in research and scholarly communication key issues in developing a more visually literate (social) science. Visual Sociology, 15(1), 7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860008583812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pauwels, L. (Hrsg.). (2006). Visual cultures of science. Rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
  73. Qiuye, W. (2004). A cross-cultural comparison of the use of graphics in scientific and technical communication. Technical Communication, 47(4), 553–560.Google Scholar
  74. Rebich-Hespanha, S., Rice, R. E., Montello, D. R., Retzloff, S., Tien, S., & Hespanha, J. P. (2015). Image themes and frames in US print news stories about climate change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 491–519.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.983534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rickard, L. N., Schuldt, J. P., Eosco, G. M., Scherer, C. W., & Daziano, R. A. (2017). The proof is in the picture. The influence of imagery and experience in perceptions of hurricane messaging. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(3), 471–485.  https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0048.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2012.735585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rodríguez Estrada, F. C., & Davis, L. S. (2015). Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication, 37(1), 140–148.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014562914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conference papers. A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 19–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00024-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2016). Different visions, different visuals. A social semiotic analysis of field-specific visual composition in scientific conference presentations. Visual Communication, 3(2), 145–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147035704043038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Taking stock. A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 650–663.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation ist Wissenschaftsjournalismus, Wissenschafts-PR … und mehr. http://www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/wissenschaftskommunikation-ist-wissenschaftsjournalismus-wissenschafts-pr-und-mehr-3337/. Zugegriffen am 11.12.2017.
  82. Schroth, O., Angel, J., Sheppard, S., & Dulic, A. (2014). Visual climate change communication. From iconography to locally framed 3d visualization. Environmental Communication, 8(4), 413–432.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.906478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schummer, J., & Spector, T. I. (2008). Popular images versus self-images of science. Visual representations of science in clipart cartoons and internet photographs. In B.-R. Hüppauf & P. Weingart (Hrsg.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (S. 69–96). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Schwarz, E. A. G. (2013). Visualizing the Chesapeake bay watershed debate. Environmental Communication, 7(2), 169–190.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.781516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shapiro, M. A., & Park, H. W. (2015). More than entertainment. YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change. Social Science Information, 54(1), 115–145.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018414554730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge. The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. The American Psychologist, 57(10), 749–761.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Q-Technique and its methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes. Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 663–674.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS One, 8(4), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Takach, G. (2013). Selling nature in a resource-based economy. Romantic/extractive gazes and Alberta’s bituminous sands. Environmental Communication, 7(2), 211–230.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.778208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tatalovic, M. (2009). Science comics as tools for science education and communication. A brief, exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication, 8(4), 1–17.Google Scholar
  93. Tollmann, V. (2014). The uncanny polar bear: Activists visually attack an overly emotionalized image clone. In B. Schneider & T. Nocke (Hrsg.), Image politics of climate change. Visualizations, imaginations, documentations (S. 249–272). Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  94. Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409–425.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547099020004004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Trumbo, J. (2006). Making science visible: Visual literacy in science communication. In L. Pauwels (Hrsg.), Visual cultures of science. Rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication (S. 266–284). Hanover: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
  96. Ventura, V., Frisio, D. G., Ferrazzi, G., & Siletti, E. (2017). How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 26(5), 547–563.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516638634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weingart, P. (2009). Frankenstein in Entenhausen? In B.-R. Hüppauf & P. Weingart (Hrsg.), Frosch und Frankenstein. Bilder als Medium der Popularisierung von Wissenschaft (S. 387–406). Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  98. Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706–718.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wessler, H., Wozniak, A., Hofer, L., & Lück, J. (2016). Global multimodal news frames on climate change. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(4), 423–445.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216661848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1131129.Google Scholar
  101. Wynn, J. (2017). Meltdowns in the media: Visualization of radiation risk from the printed page to the internet. In A. G. Gross (Hrsg.), Science and the Internet. Communicating knowledge in a digital age (S. 191–220). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität FreiburgFribourgSchweiz

Personalised recommendations