Visibility of team science: A case study of media coverage of the NSF Science and Technology Centers

Science Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 48-76

  Illman, Deborah L ^a   Clark, Fiona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Center; Content analysis; Feature; Interdisciplinary; NSF; STC; Team science

Indexed keywords

EID: 49149124194     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008319434     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bennett, W. 1986. The medium is large, but how good is the message? In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. Dunwoody, S. Friedman, and C. Rogers, 119-28. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Blakeslee, S. 1997. Reporting on neuroscience. The Quill 85 (4). 35-8.
3. Brainard, J. 2002. U.S. agencies look to interdisciplinary science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (40). A20 - A21.
4. Brainard, J. 2005. NSF redefines "research center." The Chronicle of Higher Education Sept. 2: 31.
5. Brody, W.R. 2005. Testimony, Committee on House Science. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. July 21.
6. Brown Daily Herald via U-Wire. 2005. "Science cohort" will aim to attract top science undergrads to Brown U Oct. 4.
7. Brzakovic, D. 2006. Centers program: NSF perspective and lessons learned. Presented to the Science Foundation of Ireland: CSET Workshop-Cork, Ireland, July 19. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/presentations/db/2006CSET. pdf(accessedApril24,2008).
8. Charney, D. 2003. Lone geniuses in popular science: The devaluation of scientific consensus. Written Communication 20: 215-41.
9. Clark, F., and Illman, D.L. 2006. A longitudinal study of the New York Times' Science Times Section. Science Communication 27 (4). 496-513.
10. Cobb, M.D. 2005. " Framing effects of public opinion about nanotechnology." Science Communication, 27 (2). 221-39.
11. Crisp, D.W. 1986. Scientists and the local press. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. Dunwoody, S. Friedman, and C. Rogers, 73-80. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
12. Dunwoody, S. 1986. The scientist as source. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. Dunwoody, S. Friedman, and C. Rogers, 3-16. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
13. Franklin, Jon. 2002. The extraordinary adventure that is science writing. Nieman Reports Fall: 8-10.
14. Friedman, S.M. 1986. The journalist's world. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. Dunwoody, S. Friedman, and C. Rogers, 17-41. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
15. Graube, Clark, F and Illman, D.L. Coverage of Team Science by Public Information Officers: Content Analysis of Press Releases about the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Centers. Submitted to IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.
16. Klapper, J.T. 1960. The effects of mass communication. New York: The Free Press.
17. Kolodzy, J. 2003. Everything that rises: Media convergence is an opportunity, not a curse. Columbia Journalism Review 42 (2). 61.
18. LaFollette, M.C. 1990. Making science our own. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
19. Levander, O.A. 2000. The selenium-coxsackievirus connection: Chronicle of a collaboration. Journal of Nutrition, 130: 485.
20. Silverstein, S. (2005, April 30). Stanford launching a global studies initiative; Two L.A. alums donate $50 million toward an effort to break down academic barriers. Los Angeles Times, pp. B4.
21. Matthews, D. Director, NSF Center for Biophotonics Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, personal communication.
22. Mervis, J. 2002. Science with an agenda: NSF expands centers program. Science 297 (July 16): 506-09.
23. Mervis, J. 2005. Centers of attention: NSF takes fresh look at their proliferation. Science 308 (5724). 943-45.
24. Metzger, N., and R.N. Zare. 1999. Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science 283 (5402). 642-43.
25. Michigan Daily via U-wire, September 30, 2005. Future courses to mix disciplines at U. Michigan.
26. M2Presswire. September 28, 2005. Yale University: $7.5m NSF grant establishes a Materials Research Science and Engineering Center.
27. National Academy of Sciences. 1996. An assessment of the National Science Foundation's Science and Technology Centers Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/stc/ (accessed April 24, 2008 ).
28. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. 2004. Interagency workshop on research at the interface of the Life Sciences and Physical Sciences, May 10. http://www.nibib.nih.gov/publicPage.cfm?pageID=2869 (accessed April 24, 2008 ).
29. National Institutes of Health. 1998. Bioengineering: Building the future of biology and medicine, June 4. Symposium report.
30. National Science Board. 2002. Science and engineering indicators-2002, NSB-02-1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/seind02/ (accessed April 24, 2008 ).
31. National Science Board. 2004. Science and engineering indicators-volume 1, NSB-04-1, volume 2, NSB-04-1A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/start.htm (accessed April 24, 2008 ).
32. National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators-volume 1, NSB-06-1, volume 2, NSB-06-1A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/ (accessed April 24, 2008 ).
33. Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology, rev. ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
34. Nisbet, M.C., and B.V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American mind. Science Communication 23 (4). 359-91.
35. Nist. March 6-8, 2002. Communicating the future: Best practices for communication of science and technology to the public (NIST Special Publication 991). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
36. Pew Research Center. 2006. Maturing Internet news audience-broader than deep (Pew Research Center biennial news consumption survey). Retrieved May 6, 2008 fromhttp://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282
37. Potter, J., and D. Levine-Donnerstein. 1999. Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research 27: 258-84.
38. Readership Institute. 2001. Newspaper content: What makes readers more satisfied. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.readership.org/content/ editorial/data/what_content_satisfies_readers.pdf
39. Rhoten, D. 2003. A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration, final report of NSF project BCS-0129573. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://www.wren-network.net/events/ 2004-AEA/R-DCentersEvaluation/Rhoten_NSF-BCS.FINAL.pdf
40. Rhoten, D., and A. Parker. 2004. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science 306 (5704). 2046.
41. Rhoten, D., and S. Pfirman. 2007. Women in interdisciplinary science; Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy 36 (1). 56-75.
42. Rogers, C.L. 1999. The importance of understanding audiences. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Freidman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 179-200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Roy, R. 2000. The interdisciplinary imperative: Interactive research and education, still an elusive goal in academia, http://books.iuniverse.com/ viewbooks (accessed November 1, 2005 ).
44. Stamm, K.R., Clark, F., and M. Torres. 2001. Media effects on public understanding of salmon recovery: The role of information processing. Paper presented at Science Interest Group of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
45. State News Service. 2005. National Cancer Institute and National Science Foundation launch collaboration. State News Service, September 21, http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/news_release_2005_09_21.asp (accessed May 15, 2008 ).
46. Stepp, C.S. 2004. What they like. American Journalism Review, December/January. http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3504 (accessed May 6, 2008 ).
47. Stocking, S.H. 1999. How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, edited by S. M. Freidman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 23-42. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
48. Sung, N.S., J.I. Gordon, G.D. Rose, E.D. Getzoff, St. J. Kron, D. Mumford, J.N. Onuchic, N.F. Scherer, D.L. Summers, and N.J. Kopell. 2003. Educating future scientists. Science 301 (5639). 1485.
49. Swaja, R., B. Hamiton, W. Liffers, R. Pettigrew, L. Tabak, and J. Berg. June 30, 2004. Interagency Workshop on Research at the Interface of the Life Sciences and Physical Sciences.
50. U.S. Newswire, June 13, 2005. Federal panel recommends changes in cancer research and delivery enterprises; More emphasis on collaborative work, community outreach.
51. Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321-37.