The article employs the mediatization concept to analyze the relationship of science and the mass media. It draws on theoretical considerations from the sociology of science to distinguish and empirically investigate two dimensions of mediatization: changes in media coverage of science on the one hand and the repercussions of this coverage on science on the other hand. Results of content analyses and focused expert interviews show that mediatization phenomena can indeed be observed in the case of science, but they are limited to certain disciplines, to certain phases (mediatization phases differ from routine phases in which the media tend to acknowledge scientific criteria, routines, and knowledge), and to a small number of media visible scientists. We conclude that media-induced structural change in science, though present, is less pronounced than mediatization of other parts of society. Compared to spheres such as politics and sports, science's media resistance is rather high.

The changing relationship between science and the mass media has been characterized in theory as a medialization of science. This paper argues that the concept of medialization should be further focused by differentiating two dimensions, an increasing media attention for scientific issues on the one hand and an increasing orientation of science towards the media on the other hand. This allows for observing changes with regard to science and the media separately. The concept is then supported empirically for the field of human genome research. British and German print media coverage of the final phase of the human genome sequencing has been studied using a quantitative content analysis. Triggered by its far-reaching implications, its “Big Science” nature and the competition of publicly and privately funded scientists to finish the first drafts of the human genome, human genome research is indicative of the medialization of science. It is therefore likely that the rationalities of the media system gain an influence on the research field or even beyond it.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThis paper looks at science communication through an organisational lens with the aim of assessing the relevance of different organisational forms for science communication.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explores science communication in different organisational forms. Based on conceptual considerations and by reviewing existing empirical literature, the paper selects and compares three organisational forms of science communication: the editorial office of a daily newspaper, the press office of a university and the Science Media Centre.FindingsThe paper shows the relevance of organisation for science communication by comparing three organisational forms. The first two, the science news desk and the press office, have the character of a sub-system of an organisation, while the third, the Science Media Centre, forms its own organisation. The paper shows how the respective set-up shapes science-media contacts with a focus on the occurrence and resolution of conflicts.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper proposes a conceptual framework for studying science communication through an organisational lens but leaves comparative empirical studies of all types to future research. Yet, it outlines and compares implications of the formal organisation of science communication from a conceptual point of view.Practical implicationsThe findings provide information on the structural impact of different organisational forms on science communication and point to where conflicting expectations, and thus potential conflicts, are most likely to occur in each case. A reflection of structurally conflicting expectations and how they can be overcome in specific situations is of high practical value for all science communication activities.Originality/valueOrganisational theorists have long argued that organisations are the key to understanding society. Despite their undoubted relevance, however, organisations and their influence on science communication have so far been much less analysed – both conceptually and empirically – than its contents, its practices and its impacts on public understanding, public policy, and on science and scientists. The paper contributes to the emerging field with conceptual considerations towards an organisational sociology of science communication.