Covering Scientific Research in Dutch Newspapers

Science Communication

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 153-176

  Hijmans, Ellen ^a   Pleljter, Alexander ^a   Wester, Fred ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Newspapers; Research reports; Science news; Science section

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345581700     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547003259559     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Ankney, R. N., P. Heilman, and J. Kolff. 1996. Newspaper coverage of the coronary artery bypass grafting report, Science Communication 18 (2): 153-64.
2. Bader, R. G. 1990. How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly 67:88-96.
3. Bauer, M. 1998. The medicalization of science news - from the "rocket-scalpel" to the "genemeteorite" complex. Social Science Information 37 (4); 731-51.
4. Bauer, M., J. Durant, A. Ragnarsdottir, and A. Rudolphsdottir. 1995. Science and technology in the British press, 1946-1990. London: The Science Museum.
5. Becker, J., P. Schnabel, and M. Bouman. 2000. Het beeld van de wetenschap [The image of science]. Den Haag: NWO.
6. Burkett, W. 1986, News reporting: Science, medicine and high technology. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
7. Caljé, J. F. 1990. Berichtgeving over technologie risico's in 1989 door de Volkskrant en De Telegraaf: Resultaten van een inhoudsanalyse [Newspaper coverage of technology risks in 1989 in de Volkskrant and de Telegraaf: Results of a content analysis]. Enschede, the Netherlands: Department of Psychology, Universiteit Twente.
8. Caljé, J. F. 2001. Plurifome berichtgeving over milieurisico's? Reconstructie van betogen over dioxine in Nederlandse dagbladen [Multiform news coverage of environmental risks? Reconstruction of discourses on dioxin in Dutch newspapers]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 29 (1): 23-50.
9. De Boer, C. 1995. Peilingen in de pers: Een Studie naar net gebruik van opiniepeilingen in Nederlandse dagbladen in de periode 1960-1988 [Polls in the press: A study on the use of opinion polls in Dutch newspapers from 1960-1988]. Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam.
10. Dunwoody, S., and M. Ryan. 1985. Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication 35:26-42.
11. Esmeijer, A. 1999. Sluiswachters in de wetenschapscommunicatie: Een Studie naar selectieprocessen bij het populariseren van [alfa]onderzoek [Gatekeepers in science communication: A study of selection processes in the popularization of (alfa)research]. Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
12. Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum.
13. Gunter, B., J. Kinderlerer, and D. Beyleveld. 1999. The media and public understanding of biotechnology: A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication 20 (4): 373-94.
14. Gutteling, J. 1997. Berichtgeving over biotechnologie in de Volkskrant 1986-1996 [News reports on biotechnology in de Volkskrant 1986-1996]. Aspekt, no. 60. Enschede, Department of Psychology, Universiteit Twente, the Netherlands.
15. Gutteling, J., H. Boer, O. Wiegman, and H. Caljé". 1991. Veranderingen in de berichtgeving over milieurisico's in vier Nederlandse dagbladen [Changes in reporting on environmental risks in four Dutch newspapers]. Massacommunicatie 19:18-36.
16. Hansen, A., and R. Dickinson. 1992. Science coverage in the British mass media: Media output and source input. Communications 17 (3): 365-77.
17. Hanssen, L. 1991. Wetenschap in de krant [Science in the newspaper]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stichting voor Publieksvoorlichting over Wetenschap en Techniek.
18. Hanssen, L., and J. Willems. 1992. Wetenschap in het Nederlandse dagblad: Een vergelijking tussen de wetenschapspagina en de rest van de krant [Science in Dutch newspapers: A comparison of science pages and the rest of the newspaper]. Massacommunicatie 20:301-12.
19. Hornig Priest, S. 1994, Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response. Science Communication 16 (2): 166-79.
20. Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content analysis. London: Sage.
21. Lammers, J. 1998. Betrouwbaarheidsonderzoek met AGREE [Reliability tests with AGREE]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Vakgroep Methoden KUN.
22. Landis, J., and G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159-74.
23. Lichter, S., and D. Amundson. 1996. Food for thought: Reporting of diet, nutrition and food safety May 1995-July 1995. Washington, DC: Center for Media and Public Affairs.
24. Merkx, F., J. Van Dijck, and A. Rip. 1999. Risicocommunicatie over nieuwe technologie op het gebied van de levenswetenschappen: Een literatuurstudie [Risk communication on new technologies in the life sciences]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stichting WeTeN.
25. Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed., 1995.New York: Freeman.
26. Pellechia, M. G. 1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science 6:49-68.
27. Peters, H. 1995. The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture and Society 17:31-48.
28. Postgate, J. 1995. Public understanding, did you say? Science and Public Awareness (Spring): 8-10.
29. Rennen, T. 2000. Journalistiek als kwestie van bronnen: Ontwikkeling en toepassing van een bron-georiënteerde benadering van journalistiek [Journalism as a matter of sources: Elaboration and application of a source oriented approach of journalism]. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
30. Riffe, D., C. Aust, and S. Lacy. 1993. The effectiveness of random, consecutive day and constructed week sampling in newspaper content analysis. Journalism Quarterly 70:133-39.
31. Salomone, K., M. Greenberg, P. Sandman, and D. Sachsman. 1990. A question of quality: How journalists and news sources evaluate coverage of environmental risk. Journal of Communication 40 (4): 117-33.
32. Stempel, G. 1981. Content analysis. In Research methods in mass communication, edited by G. Stempel and B. Westley, 119-31. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Tankard, J., and M. Ryan, 1974. News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly 51:219-25.
34. Weigold, M. F. 2001, Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23 (2): 164-93.
35. Wester, F. 1995. Strategieën voor kwalitatief ondenoek [Strategies for qualitative research]. 3rd ed. Bussum, the Netherlands: Coutinho.
36. Willems, J., J. De Bruin, and M. Lürsen. 1998. De normen van voorlichters en wetenschapsjournalisten bij selectie van informatie over wetenschap [The criteria of educators and science journalists in selecting information on science]. Tijdschnft voor Communicatiewetenschap 26:14-29.