Paper short abstract:

A study on the mediatization patterns of visible scientists, based on qualitative interviews with 22 Estonian researchers, illustrates how different communication-related attitudes and media interaction practices lead to functionally distinct ways in which scientists are present in mass media.

Paper long abstract:

Increasingly, “the demand to communicate with the public has become part of [scientists’] legitimating exercises” (Weingart, 2012). Visibility of scientists is usually perceived positively and efforts are made to support their public communication efforts, e.g., by proving media training.

The impacts of a close relationship with media are evaluated more critically in the theoretical approach known as mediatization. According to this framework, an extensive adaptation with media logic can distort crucial processes within science and alter its basic social function (Franzen, Weingart & Rödder, 2012). While science has been considered resistant to extensive mediatization (Rödder & Schäfer, 2010), institutional changes connected with promotion culture have been noted (Väliverronen, 2021). Therefore, an individual scientist is expected to communicate with the public both by the society and their institution but the adaptations to media logic that are needed to gain and maintain media visibility can potentially alter the core scientific values that guide the researcher.

This paper presents the conclusions of my PhD thesis on mediatization of scientists, exploring how these tensions are being negotiated among publicly visible researchers in Estonia. Based on qualitative interviews with 22 researchers, the paper outlines patterns of adaptations to media logic among individual scientists, suggesting functional niches of media presence.

Those patterns are characterized by different communication-related attitudes and media interaction practices and can explain the variability among researchers’ presence in media. The niches vary in the extent to which they benefit the scientific endeavor, the institutions, the researchers, the journalists or the public.

Paper short abstract:

Celebrity is a multidimensional phenomenon, and several factors contribute to its production. The objective of the presentation will be to investigate the process of celebritization in science and propose various forms of celebrity-experts.

Paper long abstract:

Recent decades have witnessed an increasing sensitivity of science to the agenda and production routines of the mass media (Entradas and Bauer, 2022); social media have provided a means for experts to engage more actively and directly in public debate (Schiele et al., 2012). Discussions and controversies among scientists previously confined to specialized communication contexts have become, at least potentially, accessible to the general public (Gregory and Miller, 1998; Horst, 2013; Bauer et al., 2019). Media exposure has entered every stage of the science communication process, penetrating laboratories and short-circuiting public discussion, specialized debate, and policy decisions (Bucchi, 2010).

For their part, mass media increasingly provide a stage for scientists. While Rae Goodell in 1977 introduced the concept of the "visible scientist," anticipating the debate on the impact of the mediatization of science (Fahy, 2017; Bucchi and Trench, 2021), in reality, the phenomenon of acquiring celebrity status affects anyone who can be considered an expert in a given field and can be traced back to an underlying trend concerning the world of communication: where the need to provide entertainment grows, conventionally famous personalities, such as stars from the world of entertainment or sports, are no longer enough. The media need to create more and more celebrity characters by expanding the field to other areas (Gabler, 1998). The spotlight is therefore shone on people with professional qualifications who are not originally related to entertainment or media stages, but who nevertheless become the subject of a process of "celebritization" (Driessens, 2012). Thus, "academic stars" (Shumway, 1997) and "celebrity scientists" (Fahy, 2015) emerge.

To illustrate the latter phenomenon, Fahy chose eight cases, including Stephen Hawking. Indeed, when talking about celebrity scientists, the thought goes to such egregious cases as Stephen Hawking, who in terms of media exposure, enthusiasm of his fans, and global notoriety was certainly no less than famous pop stars or big movie stars. However, there are various shades of celebrity. In politics, for example, there are, yes, real stars who have become global icons such as Barack Obama (Campus, 2020), but there has also been recent discussion about the existence of so-called "everyday celebrity politicians" (Wood et al., 2016). Celebrity is a multidimensional phenomenon, and several factors contribute to its production.

The research to be presented is situated in the debate on the relationship between science, politics, media and society, and is based on the literature of celebrity studies, analyzing the most typical dimensions of celebrity with both quantitative and qualitative empirical evidence. The objective of the presentation will be to investigate the process of celebritization in science and propose various forms of celebrity-experts.

Paper short abstract:

This study provides insights into one of the ways scholars engage with the public to drive social change: scholar-activism. This research offers a Southern perspective by delving into the experiences of scholars at a research institute in South Africa as they navigate the realm of climate activism.

Paper long abstract:

For decades, scholars have actively engaged in public discourse on critical issues such as climate change. Scholar-activism serves as one avenue for bridging scholarship and society, encompassing various forms like expressing political views publicly, collaborating with activist organizations, and adopting action-oriented research and educational approaches. Albeit, the integration of scholarship with activism demands a delicate balance, as it can jeopardize scientific autonomy and credibility due to divergent norms.

Despite its importance, scholar-activism remains understudied. Existing literature is predominantly focused on experiences from the Global North, thereby neglecting the unique contexts of the Global South often characterized by restricted freedom of speech and protest, as well as inequalities and resource scarcity that profoundly influence the experiences of scholar-activists.

This research focuses on climate scholar-activism, offering a Southern perspective through an in-depth analysis of a research institute in South Africa: an academic institute engaged in climate activism and bottom-up social movements within a complex historical context marked by anti-apartheid struggles and ongoing quests for democracy, climate justice, and epistemic decolonization.

This study adopts a qualitative inductive methodology. Through interviews, ethnographic observations, and document analysis, this study sheds light on the experiences of scholars engaged in bottom-up social movements and the ways they negotiate across the boundaries- of science and politics, of expert and non-expert. Key research inquiries delve into the scholars' perceptions of how activist engagements shape their research and teaching, and the multifaceted role of institutional, historical, and contextual factors in shaping climate scholar-activism within the South African context.

Paper short abstract:

Climate change is becoming tangible in Germany as severe forest diebacks occur. Researchers actively engage in heated public debates on future directions for forest management on opposing ends of the conflict. Here, we explore their motivations to enter the debate and the roles they take up in it.

Paper long abstract:

The effects of climate change have finally become undeniable in Germany: in the years 2018-2022 alone, 490.000 ha of forest cover (roughly 4.8% of Germany’s forests, or 1.3% of its entire surface area) has been lost due to droughts, wildfires or the related spread of pests. These events sparked fierce political and public debates on the causes, the culprits and the consequences, with forest researchers finding themselves on both sides of a controversy on the future design of Germany’s forest and its management.

By analyzing the researchers’ contribution in media and political advisory boards as well as interviews conducted with some of the most prominent participants, we explore the roles researchers play in the debate, and reconstruct patterns of becoming engaged. In this context, we claim that emotionally charged narratives, or “deep stories” (Hochschild, 2016), involving very specific imaginaries of human-forest relationships as well as of professional and sectoral identities, rather than surface-level disagreements over “facts”, play a crucial role in explaining the heated debate. It is those deep stories which in our case also motivated researchers to enter the public arena.

While public engagement by scientists in an era of multiple anthropogenic crises is often discussed in terms of raising awareness for long-term trends clearly visible in their data but easy to ignore in everyday life (“follow the science!”), here, the signs are obvious – but their interpretation is strongly contested also among researchers, and their struggle for epistemic authority on German forests is happening in broad daylight.

Paper short abstract:

This study examines the visibility of sociologists in the German media during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on their visibility in relation to their contributory expertise. A key aim is data collection on both their public statements and academic publications for further research.

Paper long abstract:

The emerging COVID-19 pandemic led to a high demand for academic experts in the German media. In addition to virologists and epidemiologists social scientists and sociologists also contributed to the discussion of the consequences of the pandemic and the corresponding measures. Our exploratory study analyses the public visibility of these sociologists in relation to their academic contributions to the pandemic.

We describe this relationship using the distinction between interactional and contributory expertise. The guiding research question is "To what extent does the public visibility of sociologists correlate with a contributory expertise in the subject area of their statements?".

A first key research objective is to collect data on the public communication of German-speaking sociologists, on the one hand, and on their academic publications on the other. To this end, we examine the coverage of the pandemic in German national newspapers and a public radio station in 2020 and 2021. Sociologists' publications will be collected through keyword searches in journals known for sociological research, conference papers as well as edited volumes on the pandemic published between 2020 and 2023.

Following this data collection we examine the correlation between the public visibility of sociologists and their contributory expertise on the topic at hand. We also investigate the extent to which sociologists with a high research output are visible in the media. In this respect, our study also refers to Weingart's concept of medialization and in particular to the relationship between academic reputation and media visibility.

Paper short abstract:

This paper presents the analysis of dialogues between scientists and the non-expert public on X/Twitter about generative AI. We identified scientists engaging with the public, the discussion topics and genres, and the roles scientists and the public play in creating highly engaged dialogues.

Paper long abstract:

As dialogues between scientists and the public are emphasized as vital components of science communication (Einsiedel, 2008; Irwin, 2021), we examined generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a topic of such dialogue. Generative AI began attracting the public’s attention when an easy-to-use planform, ChatGPT, became widely available in November 2022. The impact of AI, more specifically generative AI, on society has been touted as enormous (Sabherwal & Grover, 2024), yet there are many unknowns about this innovative technology. Thus, it is natural for the non-expert public to seek out expertise from scientists. Social media platforms allow the non-expert public to learn from and engage with scientists about diverse topics online. We analyzed dialogues between scientists and the non-expert public on X, formerly Twitter, about generative AI during the early stage of ChatGPT’s public release. We used topic modeling, content analysis, and regression analysis to identify who the scientists are and to communicate about generative AI, what and how scientists discuss generative AI, what roles scientists and the non-expert public play while engaging in dialogue about generative AI, and what roles scientists and the non-expert public play to create high engagement in an online platform. Our findings shed light on dialogues between scientists and the non-expert public about an emerging technology using Kling (1996)’s genre regarding discourses about computerization as well as online knowledge sharing roles (Hara & Sanfilippo, 1996) as frameworks to analyze the content of posts generated by both scientists and the non-expert public.

Paper short abstract:

We describe practices of communication and research integrity among researchers working in Portuguese universities

Paper long abstract:

Science communication is now recognized as a responsibility of scientists. We see a growing demand and incentives for scientists and scientific institutions to communicate with external audiences and be active in public debates and science and technology policies. In recent decades, studies have emerged in several countries on the public communication practices of scientists, barriers and incentives for a scientists’ activity to address non-specialists, as well as their perceptions of the public. In Portugal, however, the topic is still lacking research. In this study with researchers working in Portuguese institutions (N=1500), in all areas of knowledge and career stages, we explore researchers' practices and perceptions about their role in science communication, as well as their practices and expectations about public involvement in science. We identify researchers' science communication activities, in traditional and new media, the audiences they target, and with what objectives. At the same time, we seek to explore how researchers' involvement in these actions relate to their conceptions of research integrity by measuring their research integrity practices and views. This study provides clues that could help scientific institutions and science communicators to support communication activities and scientists in their institutions.

Paper short abstract:

Research work investigating the innovative approach that Citizen Science brings to the communication of science through qualitative research techniques.

Paper long abstract:

Public participation in the context of science and technology is predominantly driven by citizen empowerment and democratic participation, as indicated by Bucchi in 2006, as well as the need to address techno-scientific controversies. In accordance with these premises, numerous scholars are progressively distancing themselves from the mere dissemination of knowledge through traditional media, opting instead for innovative approaches such as Citizen Science. The latter is configured as a practice that actively involves the public in scientific research, representing a significant resource to address not only environmental, social and economic issues, but also to enrich scientific communication. Citizen Science is considered a vehicle through which scientific knowledge is collaboratively constructed, challenging the usual expert hierarchies. In this perspective, scientific communication becomes a negotiated process between participating scientists and citizens. In light of these assumptions, the aim of this research is to provoke reflection on the contribution of Citizen Science to science communication. What are the main characteristics of the communication strategies adopted by experts in Citizen Science projects? How are relations between experts and non-experts characterised by such strategies? To answer these questions, qualitative research techniques will be employed, aimed at obtaining results that can be considered from a sociological point of view.

Paper short abstract:

The talk explains why public hostility towards scientists in the context of the coronavirus pandemic may have led to both an increased willingness to expose themselves publicly (fear control) and to withdraw from the public sphere and avoid social visibility (danger control).

Paper long abstract:

During the coronavirus pandemic, scientists who have dedicated their work to combating the virus have received great public attention and recognition. At the same time, their role as government advisors also provoked opposition and even open hostility. This proposal deals with the question of how the experience of the corona pandemic has affected the willingness of individual scientists to engage with the public. At first glance, both of the reactions suggested in the title seem similarly plausible. The perceived importance of public science communication in times of crisis may encourage researchers to increase their willingness to make public appearances. As a result, political efforts to increase public science communication may have received an additional boost. However, the observation that public engagement can be dangerous could just as well prompt scientists to avoid leaving the comparatively safe refuge of the scientific community. This would be a significant setback for the decades-long efforts for public engagement activities of scientists. The proposal makes three contributions to this unfinished debate: (1) It provides fresh data on the experiences of scientists at German universities and research institutions. (2) It extends the research beyond the group of those directly affected by examining the impact on scientists who have never spoken publicly about COVID-19 themselves (spillover effect). (3) It offers a theory-based explanation for the inconsistent evidence that previous studies on this topic have revealed. The contribution is based on a standardized survey of around 8,000 WoS authors affiliated with a German university or research institution.

Paper short abstract:

A survey within the French neuroscience community, supplemented by interviews, aims to explore researchers' attitudes towards public engagement and emerging themes like gender and climate change. It will also consider political and organizational affiliations of researchers.

Paper long abstract:

Public interest in neuroscience is growing and is accompanied by an increase in outreach activities. Both to respond to public interest and to combat misinformation about the brain and its capabilities, the involvement of researchers in scientific mediation is crucial.

It inevitably generates expectations from the public with regard to science popularization initiatives. But how do researchers perceive them? What impact does this have on their willingness to engage in communication with the public, and on the content of their messages? To what extent can this perception of public expectations be a factor in researchers' reluctance or motivation to engage in popularization?

The present work, based on a questionnaire survey circulated within the French neuroscience community at the beginning of 2024, supplemented by interviews, aims to understand the environment of existing popularization practices in this discipline and its recent evolutions.It aims to reassess the motivations and reluctances of researchers to engage in mediation activities in order to provide a finer segmentation, both from the point of view of relationships with audiences (patients, schoolchildren, journalists...), and the formats proposed (personal writings or responses to interviews, social networks...).

The study will look again at the transformation of practices linked to Covid-19, but above all to the new themes tackled by researchers (gender, global warming) when addressing audiences. It will also highlight the political, associative or trade union commitments that structure, or not, their engagement with the general public.

Paper short abstract:

With the changes in information dissemination methods, scientists adopt more diverse methods of scientific communication, both scientists and the public need to deal with the benefits and challenges brought by new communication methods.

Paper long abstract:

Communication and dialogue between scientists and the public is very important. With the change in the way of information dissemination, the way of communication between scientists and the public has gradually changed from the one-way communication to the coexistence of multiple communication modes, and the driving mechanism of scientific communication among scientists has also changed accordingly. With the development of new media such as short video, the ways and means of science communication are becoming more and more diversified. In the process of scientific communication, scientists not only have formal channels such as giving lectures and writing articles, but more and more scientists are choosing social media, short video platforms, and so on.

New modes of information dissemination pose challenges for both scientists and the public. On the one hand, scientists need to face and solve the following problems, including how to balance the relationship between scientific research and science communication, how to transform abstract scientific knowledge into information that can be easily accepted by the public, and how to ensure the quality of scientific information. On the other hand, for the public, facing a huge flow of information, they need to learn how to screen information to obtain the knowledge they need, how to ensure the quality of obtaining technological information, such as distinguishing between real and fake experts, and how to avoid only accepting specific types of information to prevent the "information cocoon".

Paper short abstract:

Through a questionnaire based on a series of fictional crisis stories, the paper focuses on listening to citizens' expectations of scientific expertise as an element at the core of a trust-based relationship between science and citizens.

Paper long abstract:

Science encountering citizens is a relationship for a long time interpreted through what is defined as the deficit model (Bucchi, 2005) characterized by a paternalistic, pedagogical view of science and by the passive role of citizens. From this perspective, there is a shift to an approach based on listening to citizens and their needs, who demand to take part in a responsible debate with scientific institutions about science trajectory (Wynne, 2006) that should respond to their expectations and needs. Establishing such a relationship can be fundamental especially in times of crisis when different scientific expertise are called by decision-makers to design resolution strategies to respond to the citizens' needs. In this direction, the first step is to know individuals’ expectations toward science. To achieve this aim, an online questionnaire was administered to university students to surface their expectations of different scientific expertise in crisis contexts. The questionnaire features several fictional stories narrating different kinds of crises such as economic, geopolitical or health crises and respondents were asked to select, in their opinion, the most adequate expertise to solve these crises, motivating their choices. Through the analysis of the 331 received responses, it is possible to know respondents' expectations of different scientific expertise in crisis contexts, comparing those towards the humanities and natural sciences. What are respondents' expectations toward natural science expertise compared with those towards social science expertise? Knowing such expectations can constitute the basis for a trust-based relationship between individuals with different scientific institutions and science domains.

Paper short abstract:

Analyzing media and interview data, we examine how scientific experts developed diverse public communication strategies and addressed intensifying mistrust in pandemic Japan. We also identify how the pandemic changed their ideas of science-society relations, the role of expertise, and the public.

Paper long abstract:

Despite Japan’s “success” in keeping the rates of Covid-19 cases and deaths consistently lower than many countries, the public’s mistrust in scientific expertise intensified and science-related populism (Mede and Schäfer 2020) rose in pandemic Japan. This paper examines how scientific experts in Japan approached the public debates and controversies regarding Covid-19 and critiques of their roles and contributions. During the pandemic, arenas for Japan’s public debate and science communication split into traditional media that focused on technocratic crisis management and alternative avenues (e.g. social media, manga) where divergent views and “theories” flourished. In this context, experts on advisory panels developed diverse strategies in public communication, many anchored in science communication literature: highlighting transparency, increasing public engagement activities (including the use of social media), and providing countermeasure options to accommodate different members of the public and encourage individual choice and agency. Nonetheless, these experts faced intense criticism from wide-ranging political actors. Some condemned them for “crossing the science/politics boundaries” by attending to non-technical aspects of pandemic governance, whereas others blamed them for not producing or using “correct” science due to their politics. Such developments ended up reinforcing scientism and narrowing the space for nuanced, STS-informed discussion of the politics and democratization of technoscience. Analyzing diverse media discourses and in-depth interviews, we examine how scientific experts addressed these evolving circumstances, and how the pandemic changed their ideas of science-society relations, the role of expertise, and the public. We consider the implications for the future of technoscience governance in Japan.