Organisation matters: towards an organisational sociology of science communication

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.

Challenges in the collaboration between researchers and in-house communication professionals in the digital media landscape

“…However, the communication professionals' faced coordination challenges among the fragmented internal structures of the organizations in line with previous studies [Davies, 2020;Klerk and Verwey, 2013;Pallas, Fredriksson and Wedlin, 2016]. They need to maneuver through complex internal processes as a prerequisite to outreach, as noted earlier [Autzen and Weitkamp, 2019;Lo, Huang and Peters, 2019;Rödder, 2020].…”

“…The researchers would also allow the communication professionals to aggregate the communication of the scattered topics of a faculty to avoid the potential cacophony, but not to lead the autonomous researchers' communication. This resembles Rödder's [2020] notion of communication professionals proportioned to exercise indirect influence without control. The results show that the researchers' communication is clearly dependent on the scientific lead's recognition, which is crucial for the researcher's activity:…”

“…Such emerging strategic communication management may face challenges on the level of practice in coordinating and integrating the communication activities of organizations [Davies, 2020;Klerk and Verwey, 2013]. According to the limited knowledge on the role of communication professionals in research organizations, they must often maneuver through the complex internal communication processes that precede the external communication actions [Autzen and Weitkamp, 2019;Lo, Huang and Peters, 2019;Rödder, 2020]. Beyond activating researchers' communication [Marcinkowski et al, 2014], communication professionals are presumed to influence science communication and perhaps even take part in deciding what content scientists communicate publicly on behalf of the organization [Autzen and Weitkamp, 2019].…”

“…The communication professionals hoped for the researchers' support in the outreach activities of their peer scholars or organization online, which must come innately. Similarly to Rödder [2020], the majority abstained from or courteously requested the supportive actions directly:…”

Wirklich irrelevant?

“…Mit Stichworten wie "Neue Governance" respektive Medialisierung der Wissenschaft (vgl. Dahinden 2004;Friedrichsmeier und Marcinkowski 2016;Grande et al 2013;Marcinkowski et al 2013;Peters et al 2008;Weingart 2005) Fähnrich et al 2019;Rödder 2020). Auch motiviert durch die jeweilige Hochschule oder die wissenschaftlichen Normen der eigenen Disziplin, sehen es einige Wissenschaftler-Innen inzwischen als ihre Pflicht und Verantwortung an, sich aktiv an öffentlichen Diskursen zu beteiligen (vgl.…”