The role of organizations in the public communication of science – Early research, recent studies, and open questions

Q3 Social Sciences Studies in Communication Sciences Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI:10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03.3994
H. P. Peters
{"title":"The role of organizations in the public communication of science – Early research, recent studies, and open questions","authors":"H. P. Peters","doi":"10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03.3994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organizational science communication of higher education institutions (and research institutes outside the university sector) came into view of scholars of “science journalism” soon after the begin of systematic studies of the scientist-journalist relationship. While the pioneering French study of scientists’ relationship with the mass media by Boltanski and Maldidier (1970) focused on implications of the norms of the scientific community for public communication by scientists, early surveys of scientists in the United States (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1982, 1983) and – peripherally – also in Germany (Krüger, 1985; Peters & Krüger, 1985) considered both the scientific community and the university (or other public research organizations) as relevant contexts of the scientist-journalist relationship. The issue of organizational science public relations (PR) was also addressed by scholars and practitioners in publications and workshops in Europe (see, e.g., Peters, 1984; Ruß-Mohl, 1990; Zerges & Becker, 1992) in the 1980s and early 1990s. While researchers were not oblivious of self-interests’ influence in public communication activities of universities and other research institutions, the dominant perspective on science communication was that of the relationship of science and the media, and PR officers at science organizations were largely conceptualized as “mediators between scientists and journalists” (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1983) or as “practitioner in the middle” (Rogers, 1988).","PeriodicalId":38434,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Communication Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Communication Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03.3994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Organizational science communication of higher education institutions (and research institutes outside the university sector) came into view of scholars of “science journalism” soon after the begin of systematic studies of the scientist-journalist relationship. While the pioneering French study of scientists’ relationship with the mass media by Boltanski and Maldidier (1970) focused on implications of the norms of the scientific community for public communication by scientists, early surveys of scientists in the United States (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1982, 1983) and – peripherally – also in Germany (Krüger, 1985; Peters & Krüger, 1985) considered both the scientific community and the university (or other public research organizations) as relevant contexts of the scientist-journalist relationship. The issue of organizational science public relations (PR) was also addressed by scholars and practitioners in publications and workshops in Europe (see, e.g., Peters, 1984; Ruß-Mohl, 1990; Zerges & Becker, 1992) in the 1980s and early 1990s. While researchers were not oblivious of self-interests’ influence in public communication activities of universities and other research institutions, the dominant perspective on science communication was that of the relationship of science and the media, and PR officers at science organizations were largely conceptualized as “mediators between scientists and journalists” (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1983) or as “practitioner in the middle” (Rogers, 1988).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
组织在科学公共传播中的作用——早期研究、最近研究和开放问题
高等教育机构(以及大学部门以外的研究机构)的组织科学传播在科学家-记者关系的系统研究开始后不久就进入了“科学新闻”学者的视野。虽然Boltanski和Maldidier(1970)对法国科学家与大众媒体关系的开创性研究侧重于科学界规范对科学家公众传播的影响,但早期对美国科学家的调查(Dunwoody & Ryan, 1982, 1983)和德国(kr ger, 1985;Peters & kr格(1985)认为科学界和大学(或其他公共研究组织)都是科学家-记者关系的相关背景。在欧洲的出版物和讲习班上,学者和实践者也讨论了组织科学公共关系的问题(例如,见Peters, 1984;俄文ß莫尔,1990;Zerges & Becker, 1992)在20世纪80年代和90年代初。虽然研究人员并没有忽视大学和其他研究机构的公共传播活动中自身利益的影响,但科学传播的主流观点是科学与媒体的关系,科学组织的公关人员在很大程度上被概念化为“科学家和记者之间的调解人”(Dunwoody & Ryan, 1983)或“中间的实践者”(Rogers, 1988)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Communication Sciences
Studies in Communication Sciences Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Botlitica: A generative AI-based tool to assist journalists in navigating political propaganda campaigns Iconic image clusters: Significance, structure, and analysis Images, clusters and types – Making sense of (large) image corpora and related practices in and with digital media From party to pandemic – Frames and metaphors in the news coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Austria Image types revisited. A texto-material approach for creating image types
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1