YouTube has become a complement learning platform which fosters learning on demand with educational videos. Educational videos are understood as a fruitful strategy to enhance the user’s knowledge and are applied in schools, as well as in science communication, e.g., to inform about climate change. This paper discusses two perspectives which become visible in the current research literature on educational videos on YouTube. First, studies assume that watching educational videos changes the attitude or behavior of the recipients. Second, studies question whether educational videos have a higher impact than other information materials such as texts. We frame both perspectives with regard to theories from media effect studies and learning concepts from education science and discuss their conclusions for educational videos on YouTube. We will first focus on students as a target group for educational videos, but in the further course, we will discuss the results for the public as targeted group of science communication as well. In the final section we will summarize which potentials and limitations educational videos have for educational purposes in science communication.

In a period characterized by vaccine hesitancy and even vaccine refusal, the way online information on vaccination is presented might affect the recipients’ opinions and attitudes. While research has focused more on vaccinations against measles or influenza, and described how the framing approach can be applied to vaccination, this is not the case with tick-borne encephalitis, a potentially fatal infection induced by tick bites. This study takes one step back and seeks to investigate whether health and scientific frames in online communication are even recognized by the public. Moreover, the influence of selected health- and vaccine-related constructs on the recognition of frames is examined. Study results indicate that health frames are the most easily identified and that their use might be a fruitful strategy when raising awareness of health topics such as vaccination.

YouTube has become an alternative learning platform which fosters learning on demand with educational videos. Educational videos are understood as a fruitful strategy to enhance the user’s knowledge and are applied in media education, e.g. in schools, as well as in science communication, e.g. to inform about climate change. Previous research has analyzed the quality of educational videos especially on medical and scientific topics or which artistic or creative aspects within the videos help to spread information. Yet, theoretical considerations whether educational videos can be used similarly for the heterogeneous group of users are missing. Deriving from both research perspectives, media education and communication science, this paper investigates which potentials and limitations both perspectives provide for educational videos and their users and discusses whether educational videos can be understood as science communication.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has sadly shown, the decision against vaccination is often linked to political ideologies and populist messages among specific segments of the population: People do not only have concerns about a potential health risk associated with vaccination but seem to have also adopted more populist attitudes towards science. In this study, the relationship between science-related populism and individuals’ attitudes towards vaccination was examined, presuming that scientific-related populism also influences individual responses towards different vaccinations. As different types of diseases and their vaccines might be perceived rather distinctively by the public, different vaccinations were considered. The survey is based on responses from 870 people from Germany and Austria. Results indicate that science-related populism influences responses towards some vaccination types, especially for those that receive extensive media coverage such as COVID-19 and measles (MMR). There was no significant impact of science-related populism on individuals’ vaccination intentions for other vaccines like seasonal influenza, human papillomavirus, or tick-borne encephalitis. In conclusion, limitations and directions for future research are addressed.

This study compares the journalistic selection of scientific results from the field of neuroscience with other scientific disciplines. Based on an input-output analysis using data from the citation database Scopus and the alternative bibliometrics provider Altmetric, we investigated which scientific studies from which scientific journals have been selected by global journalism. Previous research suggests that the selection of sources and results in science journalism follows a certain heavy-tailed distribution, a power law. This structure of journalistic coverage is a result of conditions on the micro-level of actions and decisions of individual journalists. Among these conditions are restrictions that derive from the process and constitution of scientific publishing and research results. We argue that the parameter of such power law distributions can potentially be used to describe selectivity in journalism on a high aggregation level. Differences in the value of the parameter point to differences in the conditions present on the micro-level. To test this assumption, we chose a field of research that has attracted a considerable degree of public attention over the last few years: neuroscience. We expected to find differences in the exponent of power law distributions between neuroscience and other scientific disciplines. Our results show that the frequency distribution of journalistic references to single studies and journals in the coverage of neuroscientific research can be described by a power law. The selection of scientific journals is more homogenous in neuroscience in the sense that there is a less pronounced dominance of just a few journals. It is proposed to interpret this as an effect of the greater popularity of neuroscience.

Zusammenfassung Social Media beherrschen nicht nur die private Kommunikation, sondern haben zunehmend auch Einfluss auf die externe Wissenschaftskommunikation. In bisherigen Forschungsarbeiten wurden zwar bereits Social Media und deren Nutzung durch Wissenschaftler*innen in Zusammenhang mit wissenschaftsexterner Kommunikation untersucht, allerdings mangelt es an einer systematischen Darstellung der Einflussfaktoren. Diese Arbeit möchte an vorangegangene Studien anknüpfen und die gefundenen Einflussfaktoren replizieren und verifizieren. Als maßgebliche Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen haben wir basierend auf dem Forschungsstand Disziplinzugehörigkeit, den beruflichen Kontext, persönliche Eigenschaften und Prädispositionen definiert. Untersucht wurde die Häufigkeit der Nutzung von Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat sowie von Blogs und Podcasts. In einer aufwändig angelegten Online-Befragung haben wir zunächst Wissenschaftler*innen von 21 deutschen Volluniversitäten zur Teilnahme an der Studie eingeladen. Die Rekrutierung erfolgte über Dekanate und Institute und führte zu einer Stichprobe von über 1100 Wissenschaftler*innen. Lediglich Facebook und Twitter erwiesen sich für die Kommunikation im wissenschaftsexternen Kontext als relevant. Nach einer binär-logistischen Regressionsanalyse zeigte sich, dass die Ergebnisse bisheriger Studien nur vereinzelt bestätigt werden konnte. Faktoren wie Disziplinzugehörigkeit, Qualifikationsstufe und Alter haben eine nur mäßig gute Erklärkraft. Der Social-Media-Typus der Hochschule, das Geschlecht, Technikaffinität oder -abneigung sowie Persönlichkeitsfaktoren erwiesen sich als nicht signifikant. Die eher geringen R‑Quadrat-Werte in allen Modellen legen nahe, dass die unabhängigen Variablen nicht in der Lage sind, die abhängigen Variablen ausreichend gut zu erklären. Somit bedarf es weiterer Forschung, die insbesondere auch Faktoren des Einflusses auf das Public Engagement von Wissenschaftler*innen unabhängig vom Kommunikationsmedium einbezieht.

No abstract

The ongoing debate surrounding vaccination uptake or refusal is far from over, much less so in view of the introduction of the first COVID‐19 vaccines. Even though global healthcare has seen significant progress over the past decades, deaths caused by vaccine‐preventable diseases remain an important health issue worldwide. This might be conditioned by the existence of numerous myths surrounding vaccination, or the negative consequences associated with vaccination. While new technologies in general and social media in particular provide vaccination‐hesitant individuals with new media outlets, they might also present a remedy to battle vaccination hesitancy. Yet, the sole reliance on information to shape individual perceptions of vaccination does not suffice anymore, as traditional information tools (e.g., posters and brochures) were deemed unsuitable to change individuals' attitudes toward vaccination. Instead, the inclusion of contextual determinants, social and cultural norms, religion, and education is proposed. Responses and attitudes toward vaccines are influenced by social norms and motivation factors, including individuals' capabilities, risk perceptions, confidence levels, and concerns. Further, clinicians have been found to play a critical role in shaping individuals' vaccination‐related attitudes and behaviors. The most cited reasons for individuals' reluctance to get vaccinated concern a lack of trust in healthcare systems, clinicians, and the actual vaccination. For this reason, vaccine‐related information should be both transparent and credible, as well as easily comprehensible. At the same time, information should be targeted toward specific audiences and tailored to their respective communicative needs to increase compliance with recommended health behaviors.