A case study in serendipity: Environmental researchers use of traditional and social media for dissemination

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Wilkinson, Clare ^a   Weitkamp, Emma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; EUROPE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; POLICY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL MEDIA;

FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84892494757     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084339     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Royal Society (2012) Science as an open enterprise. The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/ Accessed 2013 March 13
2. Peters HP (2012) Scientific sources and the Mass Media: forms and consequences of medialization. In: S RödderM FranzenP Weingart. The sciences' media connection - public communication and its repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. pp. 266-276.
3. Harley D, Krzys Acord S, Earl-Novell S, Lawrence S, King CJ (2010) Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC Berkeley. Available: http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe-fsc. Accessed 2013 March 13
4. European Commission (2012). Science for environment policy. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/about.htm. Accessed 2013 September 18
5. Weitkamp E (2010) Writing science. In M BrakeE Weitkamp. Introducing Science Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. pp. 79-104.
6. Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLOS ONE 7(5): e36240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036240. PubMed: 22590526.
7. Russell M, Boulton G, Clarke P, Eyton D, Norton J (2010) The independent climate change emails review. Independent Climate Change Email Review. Available: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. Accessed 2013 March 13
8. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M et al. (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science 321(5886): 204-205. doi:10.1126/science.1157780. PubMed: 18625578.
9. Allan S (2002) Media, risk and science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
10. Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C (2009) Opening the black box: scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 512-530. doi:10.1177/ 0963662507084202.
11. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23(4): 359-391. doi:10.1177/107554700202300401.
12. Davies N (2008) Flat earth news. London: Chatto and Windus.
13. Khot A (2011) Pressing science: a study of the utilisation and involvement of the press office in science communication. Unpublished MSc Dissertation Bristol: UWE.
14. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2008) Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences new blend online and traditional sources. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research. Available: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf. Accessed 2012 October 22
15. Van Eperen L, Marincola FM (2011) How scientists use social media to communicate their research. J Transl Med 9: 199. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-199. PubMed: 22085450.
16. Holliman R (2011) Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of 'climategate' for science journalism and public debate in the digital age. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism 12(7): 832-846. doi: 10.1177/1464884911412707.
17. Trench B (2012) Scientists' blogs: Glimpses behind the scenes. In: S RödderM FranzenP Weingart. The sciences' media connection - public communication and its repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. pp. 273-290.
18. Allgaier J, Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Lo YY, Peters HP (2013) Journalism and Social Media as Means of Observing the Contexts of Science. BioScience 63(4): 284-287. Available online at: PubMed: 23535710
19. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10): 1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041. PubMed: 21622297.
20. Finch J (2012) Accessibility, sustainability, excellence; How to expand access to research publications. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. Research Information Network. Available: http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/. Accessed 2013 March 13
21. European Commission (2012). Towards better access to scientific information: Boosting the benefits of public investments in research. European Commission. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= COM:2012:0401:FIN:EN:PDF Accessed 2013 March 13
22. Royal Society (2006) Science and the public interest. The Royal Society. Available: http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2006/science-public- interest/. Accessed 2013 March 13
23. Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2013) Science, new media and the public. Science 339 (40): 40-41.
24. Bauer M (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science - discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society 14 (2): 221-240. doi:10.1177/097172180901400202.
25. Berkowitz D (1992) Who sets the media agenda? Ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In D Kennamer. Public opinion, the press and public policy. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 81-102.
26. Bultitude K, Rodari P, Weitkamp E (2012) Bridging the gap between science and policy: the importance of mutual respect, trust and the role of mediators. Journal of Science Communication 11(3): C01.
27. Sardo AM, Weitkamp E (2012) Exploring the ways environmental science is used and valued by policy-makers in Portugal: a case study. Journal of Science Communication 11(3): C05.