Organizational Influence on Scientists' Efforts to Go Public: An Empirical Investigation

Science Communication

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 56-80

  Marcinkowski, Frank ^a   Kohring, Matthias ^b   Fürst, Silke ^c   Friedrichsmeier, Andres ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

medialization of science; new governance of science; organization communication; public relations; quantitative analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892459962     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547013494022     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Badenschier F.,Wormer H.The sciences' media connection-public communication and its repercussions. Sociology of the sciences yearbook. Rödder S.Franzen M.Weingart P., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012:59-85.
2. Bentley P.,Kyvik S.Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:48-63.
3. Bishop R.Research.Theory, Culture & Society. 2006;23:570-571.
4. Bodmer W. F.The public understanding of science: Report of a Royal Society ad hoc group. London: The Royal Society; 1985:.
5. Borchelt R. E.Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Bucchi M.Trench B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:147-157.
6. Brass K.,Rowe D.Knowledge limited: Public communication, risk and university media policy.Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 2009;23:53-76.
7. Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. Braun D.Merrien F.-X., ed. London, England: Kingsley; 1999:.
8. Clark B. R.The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1983:.
9. Clark B. R.Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, England: Pergamon; 1998:.
10. Davison P. W.The third-person effect in communication.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1983;47:1-15.
11. Décieux J. P.,Heinz A.,Jacob R.Online-Erhebungen mit EFS Survey. Ein Überblick über grundlegende Funktionen des Erhebungsprogramms. Munich, Germany: GRIN; 2011:.
12. Delanty G.Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education; 2001:.
13. DiMaggio P. J.,Powell W. W.The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.American Sociological Review. 1983;48:147-160.
14. Dunwoody S.Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. Friedman S. M.Dunwoody S.Rogers C. L., ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1986:3-16.
15. Dunwoody S.,Brossard D.,Dudo A.Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2009;86:299-314.
16. Dunwoody S.,Ryan M.Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalists.Journalism Quarterly. 1983;60:647-656.
17. Dunwoody S.,Ryan M.Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media.Journal of Communication. 1985;35:26-42.
18. Dunwoody S.,Scott B. T.Scientists as mass media sources.Journalism Quarterly. 1982;59:52-59.
19. EhlersV., & Committee on Science. (Eds.). (1998). Unlocking our future: Toward a new national science policy. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-105hprt105-b/pdf/GPO-CPRT-105hprt105-b.pdf.
20. Engwall L.European universities in transition: Issues, models and cases. Mazza C.Quattrone P.Riccaboni A., ed. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar; 2008:31-48.
21. Friedrichsmeier A.Die unterstellten Wirkungen der universitären Steuerungsinstrumente. Zur hochschulischen Dauerreform und den Möglichkeiten ihrer Entschleunigung. Muenster, Germany: LIT; 2012:.
22. Gascoigne T.,Metcalfe J.Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media.Science Communication. 1997;18:265-282.
23. Gregory J.,Miller S.Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, England: Basic Books; 2000:.
24. Gunther A. C.,Storey D. J.The influence of presumed influence.Journal of Communication. 2003;53:199-215.
25. Holmström S.Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization.Public Relations Review. 2005;31:497-504.
26. Jacobson N.,Butterill D.,Goering P.Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers' engagement in knowledge transfer activities.Science Communication. 2004;25:246-259.
27. New forms of governance in research organizations: Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration. Jansen D., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2007:.
28. Jensen P.A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:26-36.
29. KallfassM. (2008). Public Relations von Wissenschaftseinrichtungen-explorative Studie in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien [Public Relations of Scientific Organizations - Explorative Study in Germany, France, and the U.K.]. In PetersH. P. (Ed.), Medienorientierung biomedizinischer Forscher im internationalen Vergleich [Media Orientation of Biomedical Researchers in International Comparison] (pp. 101-175). Retrieved from http://wwwzb1.fz-juelich.de/contentenrichment/onlinepublikationen/Gesundheit_18.pdf.
30. Kehm B. M.,Lanzendorf U.The impacts of university management on academic work: Reform experiences in Austria and Germany.Management Revue. 2007;18:153-173.
31. Kohring M.Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz, Germany: UVK; 2005:.
32. KohringM.MarcinkowskiF.LindnerC.KarisS. (2013). Media orientation of German university decision makers and the executive influence of public relations. Public Relations Review. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.01.002.
33. Krücken G.,Meyer F.Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change. Drori G.Meyer J.Hwang H., ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006:241-257.
34. Kyvik S.Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty.Science Communication. 2005;26:288-311.
35. Martín-Sempere M. J.,Garzón-García B.,Rey-Rocha J.Scientists' motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:349-367.
36. Miller S.Public understanding of science at the crossroads.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:115-120.
37. Pearson G.The participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:121-137.
38. Peters H. P.Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Bucchi M.Trench B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:131-146.
39. Peters H. P.,Brossard D.,Cheveigné S.,Dunwoody S.,Kallfass M.,Miller S.,Tsuchida S.Science-media interface. It's time to reconsider.Science Communication. 2008;30:266-276.
40. Peters H. P.,Heinrichs H.,Jung A.,Kallfass M.,Petersen I.Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Cheng D.Claessens M.Gascoigne T.Metcalfe J.Schiele B.Shunke S., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2008:71-92.
41. Poliakoff E.,Webb T.What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?.Science Communication. 2007;29:242-263.
42. Rödder S.The sciences' media connection-public communication and its repercussions. Sociology of the sciences yearbook. Rödder S.Franzen M.Weingart P., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012:155-178.
43. Rödder S.,Schäfer M. S.Repercussion and resistance: An empirical study on the interrelation between science and mass media.Communications. 2010;35:249-267.
44. Rogers C. L.Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. Friedman S. M.Dunwoody S.Rogers C. L., ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1986:42-54.
45. Rowe D.,Brass K.The uses of academic knowledge: The university in the media.Media, Culture & Society. 2008;30:677-698.
46. Rowe D.,Brass K."We take academic freedom very seriously." How university media offices manage academic public communication.International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics. 2011;7:3-20.
47. Scott W. R.Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Scott W. R.Meyer J. W., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:55-80.
48. Smith K. C.,Singer R. F.,Kromm E. E.Getting cancer research into the news: A communication case study centered on one U.S. comprehensive cancer center.Science Communication. 2010;32:202-231.
49. Fachserie 11/Reihe 4.3.2. Bildung und Kultur: Monetäre hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen: Einzelne Hochschulen 2010. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2012:.
50. Tsfati Y.,Cohen J.,Gunther A. C.The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists.Science Communication. 2011;33:143-166.
51. Weingart P.Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. 2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The moment of truth: The relationship of science with politics, economics, and media in the knowledge society] (1st ed.). Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück.Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück; 2001:.
52. Weingart P.,Pansegrau P.Reputation in science and prominence in the media: The Goldhagen debate.Public Understanding of Science. 1999;8:1-16.
53. Wernick A.Rebranding Harvard.Theory, Culture & Society. 2006;23:566-567.
54. Winter E.Public communication of science and technology: German and European perspectives.Science Communication. 2004;25:288-293.
55. Wu C. F. J.Jackknife, bootstrap and other resampling plans in regression analysis.Annals of Statistics. 1986;14:1261-1350.