This article contributes to the debate on the influence of organizational settings on scientists’ media contact. Drawing on a quantitative survey of researchers ( n = 942) from 265 German universities, the results indicate that a large proportion of scientists from all disciplines participate regularly in the dissemination of research findings. The authors provide evidence that scientists’ media efforts are influenced by how they adopt their university’s desire to be visible in the media, as well as by the university’s PR activities. The increased orientation toward news media is discussed in the light of the new governance of science within Europe.

A large and growing body of literature shows that audience metrics exert a significant influence in many newsrooms around the world. Scholars assume that this might affect the quality of news, but findings on how audience metrics influence news quality and media performance are scattered. Based on a widely used set of news quality criteria, this article is the first to focus on this question. It reviews and discusses the existing findings by considering the influence of audience metrics across four analytical dimensions: A) the allocation of resources and recognition; B) the volume, practices and rhythms of news production; C) the selection and placement of topics; and D) the formats and styles of news presentation. The analysis reveals that journalists’ use of audience metrics has a mainly negative impact on news quality. This effect is the result of both the growing economic pressures on newsrooms and a dominant rhetoric that equates measures of audience size with audience interests and good journalistic work.

Ein prägendes Element der wissenschaftspolitischen Reformbemühungen in den letzten beiden Jahrzehnten ist der Rückzug des Staates aus der Detailsteuerung von Hochschulen. Daraus ergeben sich vielfältige Konsequenzen, nicht zuletzt ein verändertes Verhältnis von wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen und interessierter Öffentlichkeit. Waren es die Hochschulen über Jahrzehnte gewohnt, dass die Wissenschaftsministerien der Länder gleichsam als institutioneller Puffer zwischen ihnen und den Interessen der gesellschaftlichen Leistungsabnehmer vermittelten, sind sie im neuen Steuerungsmodell nun häufiger und unmittelbarer als jemals zuvor mit den Ansprüchen ihrer gesellschaftlichen Stakeholder konfrontiert. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit einer Reihe von Fragen, die sich aus dieser gewandelten Konstellation von Politik, Öffentlichkeit und Hochschulen ergeben. Wie gestalten die Hochschulen ihr Verhältnis zur Öffentlichkeit? Welche Auswirkungen hat das für die innerorganisatorische Struktur und Kultur von Universitäten und Fachhochschulen? Und welche Rolle verbleibt dem Staat innerhalb der ›New Governance of Science‹? Auf der Basis einer bundesweiten Befragung von Entscheidungsträgern an deutschen Hochschulen lassen sich zwei Trends konstatieren: zum Ersten eine verkappte Politisierung der Hochschulen, die das wissenschaftspolitische Zustimmungsmanagement weitgehend selbst in die Hand nehmen, und zum Zweiten eine sekundäre Medialisierung wissenschaftlicher Organisationen, weil die verantwortlichen Entscheidungsträger zu diesem Zweck das Rollenmodell staatlicher Politik kopieren.

Over the past decades, higher education institutions (HEIs) across the world have institutionalized communication departments and played an increasingly important role in communicating science to the public. While a growing body of research has analyzed the practices and structures of central communication departments in HEIs, little is known about developments over time. This study examines perceived changes in HEI communication along different analytical dimensions and across HEI types. Conceptually, neo-institutional theory is used to derive the factors that foster this change, specifically the new public management reforms and the accompanying coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures on HEIs. The empirical study is based on a survey of 196 members of HEI leadership in Switzerland. The results show that, according to organizational leaders, HEI communication has diversified and intensified considerably over the last five to ten years. It has also become – albeit to a somewhat lesser extent – more professional and strategic. Multiple linear regression analysis reveals that the strongest predictors of perceived change in HEI communication are the goal to build public reputation, the perceived competition among HEIs for public reputation, and the observation of other Swiss HEIs. The study outlines implications for future research and for HEI communicators.

The public communication of higher education institutions (HEIs) has gained importance both in practice and research and can serve different goals. Many scholars argue that HEI communication departments mainly aim to promote their organization and are less concerned with broader societal goals and normative principles of communication. Since these assumptions have not yet been explored empirically, we surveyed 203 communication practitioners from all 42 Swiss HEIs on their role conceptions and the quality criteria used in their communication departments. Our results show no general dominance of organizational over societal goals and revealed few differences between different types of HEIs.