Recent publications question the public visibility of communication science as a discipline and its relevance for the broader society. To address this issue, we analyze the public engagement of communication scientists by using the example of their Twitter activity. We theoretically distinguish eight types of engagement and explore their empirical prevalence. The results show that a large share of communication is between peers, fulfilling social networking functions. Nevertheless, more than a quarter of the tweets are on political and social topics. In this way, communication scientists bring society into their scholarly community and thus act as bridge builders. They also reach diverse publics outside of science, such as followers from the field of economics. Our study thus highlights the diversity of connections between science and society and can offer a starting point to further research other fields of public engagement and the impact of the discipline on the public discourse.

PurposeThis study is dedicated to universities' strategic social media communication and focuses on the fan engagement triggered by Facebook postings. The study contributes to a growing body of knowledge that addresses the strategic communication of universities that have thus far hardly dealt with questions of resonance and evaluation of their social media messages.Design/methodology/approachUsing the Facebook Graph API, the authors collected posts from the official Facebook fan pages of the universities listed on Shanghai Ranking's Top 50 of 2015. Specifically, the authors retrieved all posts in a three-year range from October 2012 to September 2015. After downloading the Facebook posts, the authors used tools for automated content analysis to investigate the features of the post messages.FindingsOverall, the median number of likes per 10,000 fans was 4.6, while the number of comments (MD = 0.12) and shares (MD = 0.40) were considerably lower. The average Facebook Like Ratio of universities per 10,000 fans was 17.93%, the average Comment Ratio (CR) was 0.56% and the average Share Ratio (SR) was 2.82%. If we compare the average Like Ratios (17.93%) and Share Ratios (2.82%) of the universities with the respective Like Ratios (5.90%) and Share Ratios (0.45%) of global brands per 10,000 fans, we may find that universities are three times (likes) and six times (shares) as successful as are global brands in triggering engagement among their fan bases.Research limitations/implicationsThe content analysis was solely based on the publicly observable Facebook communication of the Top 50 Shanghai Ranking universities. Furthermore, the content analysis was limited to universities listed on the Shanghai Ranking's Top 50. Also, the Facebook posts have been sampled between 2012 and September 2015. Moreover, the authors solely focused on one social media channel (i.e., Facebook), which might restrict the generalizability of the study findings. The limitations notwithstanding, university communicators are invited to take advantage of the study's insights to become more successful in generating fan engagement.Practical implicationsFirst, posts published on the weekend generate significantly more engagement than those published on workdays. Second, the findings suggest that posts published in the evening generate more engagement than those published during other times of day. Third, research-related posts trigger a certain number of shares, but at the same time these posts tend to lower engagement with regard to liking and commenting.Originality/valueTo the authors’ best knowledge, the automated content analysis of 72,044 Facebook posts of universities listed in the Top 50 of the Shanghai Ranking is the first large scale longitudinal investigation of a social media channel of higher education institutions.

PurposeResearch on science communication in organizational contexts is scarce – even though many cases can be found where organizations from science and beyond communicate about science-related issues, or where organizational contexts have an impact on the communication of individual scientists and scientific organizations. Therefore, it is time for an “organizational turn” in science communication research, and for more scholarly emphasis on the specific cases that science-related communication in, from and about organizations presents. Such an approximation would benefit both science communication research and analyses of strategic and organizational communication.Design/methodology/approachThis special issue of the “Journal of Communication Management” on “Communicating Science in Organizational Contexts” is a step in this direction: It compiles commentaries from leading scholars in the respective fields as well as research articles coming from various disciplines and conceptual as well as methodological paradigms. In the editorial, we assess overlaps between scholarship on science communication and strategic communication, respectively, based on a meta-analysis of journals in the field(s), develop a guiding heuristic for analyzing science communication in organizational settings, and introduce the contributions to the special issue.FindingsThe meta-analysis shows that overlaps between science communication research and scholarship on strategic communication are scarce. While organizations and their communication appear occasionally, and increasingly often, in science communication research, scholars of strategic communication only rarely analyze science communication.Research limitations/implicationsThe meta-analysis is limited to the publications of five scholarly journals over ten years. It still demonstrates the lack of research in the intersection of scholarship on science communication and strategic communication.Practical implicationsScientific organizations are rapidly extending and professionalizing their strategic communication, and an increasing number of organizations beyond science communicate on science or science-related issues. Understanding science communication in organizational settings, therefore, is crucial for practitioners in both areas.Originality/valueAnalyzing science communication in organizational settings is of increasing importance – yet few studies exist that have done it, and the respective research fields devote not much attention to one another. The special issue is a first foray into this new, intersectional field.

This article examines the visibility of social scientists in the context of crisis media reporting by using the example of the German populist radical right movement PEGIDA. Based on previous research, a role typology was developed to serve as a framework for the empirical study. A content analysis of German newspapers demonstrates that social scientists are quite visible in the media coverage of PEGIDA and are presented mainly in the role of intellectuals. At the same time, new roles for social scientists are also discernible. Based on these findings, an extended role typology was developed to provide points of reference for further research.

From the 1960s onwards, communication scientists have analyzed science communication. This article provides an overview of the empirical evidence that this research has generated. First, it describes the structures of the research field based on available meta-analyses. Then, it describes what is known about the communicators of science (such as scientists, journalists, PR experts, NGOs, and others) and about the portrayals of science in news media as well as online and in social media, and examines what is known about the uses and effects of science communication. For each of these subfields, the questions in focus, typical theoretical approaches, main results, and gaps are identified and reflected upon. In addition, the article identifies research gaps and potential avenues for future research.

No abstract

This commentary considers the separate but interconnected evolution of science communication and environmental communication as fields of research and practice, and argues for better mutual understanding between the fields, including an understanding of necessary differences. It notes that the repertoires of science communication and environmental communication overlap but have different emphases. Environmental communication emphasises public allegiances with a view to persuasion; science communication has focussed on public understanding and appreciation of science. The potential and the need for closer cooperation are growing as the authority of science is challenged in political arenas. Both fields recognise the important contributions of science to public sense-making and informed decision-making on major issues. Increasing engagement with the science that underpins environmental issues could benefit environmental communicators. In political contexts, science communication could learn from environmental communication's greater attention to advocacy and symbolic representations. This Commentary offers a view of EC and SC and their relations that draws on the experiences of the authors, all with a foot in both camps. The Commentary is based on a 'practice reflection' paper and panel the authorsall members of the scientific committee of the PCST, the global network for science communicationpresented at the International Environmental Communication Association conference, COCE 2017. Guided by the maxim that "good fences make good neighbours", the panel sought to clarify differences as well as similarities between EC and SC.We note the considerable interest in both EC and SC in looking across the fences between them. Of 108 research articles published in the journal, Science Communication and 237 published in the journal Public Understanding of Science in 2014-17, 30% and 27%, respectively, were on environmental topics; in both journals just over 60% of these papers on environment were on climate change. With little modification, this material could have been published in an environmental communication journal, though the foci may have been somewhat different.A search in Public Understanding of Science, 2014-17, on 'environmental communication' produces mainly passing mentions or bibliographical or biographical references (journal title, publication title or author's declared research interest). Just one use of the phrase is found in a substantive treatment of environmental communication (Sakellari, 2014), referring to Brulle (2010) on 'environmental melodrama'. A search in Environmental Communication, 2014-17, on 'science communication' produces many passing references, but also several (e.g. Suldovsky et al, 2017;Lee et al, 2017;Burke et al, 2016) that deal with science communication in terms of formal study and theoretical reflection.There is an apparent asymmetry in the respective interest in each other's topic-fields, with SC showing more interest in EC's than vice versa, but also asymmetry in the respective ...

Science diplomacy is a widely practiced area of international affairs, but academic research is rather sparse. The role of academia within this field of politics-science interaction has hardly been considered. This article analyzes this scholarly perspective: Based on a literature review, a case study of a German science diplomacy program is used to explore objectives, benefits, and constraints of science diplomacy for participating scholars. While political approaches suggest an ideal world where both sides profit from the collaboration, the findings of the case study point to another conclusion which shows that the interaction of scholars and officials in science diplomacy is far more complex. Thus, the contribution is regarded as both a useful starting point for further research and for a critical reflection of academics and politicians in science diplomacy practice to gauge what can be expected from the collaboration and what cannot.