Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientists

Kreimer, Pablo; Levin, Luciano; Jensen, Pablo

doi:10.1177/0963662510383924

Cited by 66 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The equivalent figures are lower for Argentine researchers. Of a sample of Argentine researchers, only 10% said they had been interviewed for a radio program and 9% for a newspaper article within the previous year (36). In an Italian study, only 49% of the surveyed researchers reported media contacts in the previous 3 y (37).…”

Section: Frequency Of Scientists' Interactions With Journalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, researchers from the humanities and social sciences tend to have more interactions with the media than those from the sciences (24,36,48). The recent German survey of researchers found that, in "informatics," "mathematics," "chemistry" and "material science," little more than 10% of researchers reported frequent media contacts; in "communication studies," "law," "history," "archaeology," and "philosophy," this proportion exceeded 50% (Fig.…”

Section: Frequency Of Scientists' Interactions With Journalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies find that organizational status and scientific productivity are positively associated with the likelihood of media interactions as well as with public engagement activities in general (14,36,37,39,(45)(46)(47). This is probably the combined effect of journalists' preferences for sources with a high reputation, a preference of public relations departments for advertising the leading researchers in their organizations, and the formal or implied privilege of the heads of research units or the principal investigators (PIs) of projects of representing the research of their groups in the media.…”

Section: Frequency Of Scientists' Interactions With Journalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comparison of the aggregated results of sciences and humanities/social sciences shows statistically significant differences for all indicators in Table 1: the Ingelfinger rule and the corresponding scientific norms are much less effective in the humanities and social sciences than in the sciences, and the perception of the specialist nature of academic knowledge is less pronounced. Researchers from the humanities and social sciences more frequently address a broader audience through their own publications than researchers in the fields of technology, medical sciences, and natural sciences (39), and, according to an Argentine study, are more often involved in a range of popularization activities than researchers from the hard sciences (36). To phrase it in terms of the gap metaphor: The gap may be a steep canyon in the sciences but a smooth valley in the humanities and social sciences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A description of the survey methodology is provided in SI Methods. Additionally, published results will be quoted from the Pew survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science members in 2009 (30)(31)(32)(33), the Royal Society survey of British scientists and engineers in 2005 (14,(32)(33)(34), and other surveys (35)(36)(37)(38)(39).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators

Peters

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

263

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article presents an up-to-date account of the current media relations of scientists, based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant surveys. The evidence suggests that most scientists consider visibility in the media important and responding to journalists a professional duty—an attitude that is reinforced by universities and other science organizations. Scientific communities continue to regulate media contacts with their members by certain norms that compete with the motivating and regulating influences of public information departments. Most scientists assume a two-arena model with a gap between the arenas of internal scientific and public communication. They want to meet the public in the public arena, not in the arena of internal scientific communication. Despite obvious changes in science and in the media system, the orientations of scientists toward the media, as well as the patterns of interaction with journalists, have their roots in the early 1980s. Although there is more influence on public communication from the science organizations and more emphasis on strategic considerations today, the available data do not indicate abrupt changes in communication practices or in the relevant beliefs and attitudes of scientists in the past 30 y. Changes in the science–media interface may be expected from the ongoing structural transformation of the public communication system. However, as yet, there is little evidence of an erosion of the dominant orientation toward the public and public communication within the younger generation of scientists.

show abstract

Section: Frequency Of Scientists' Interactions With Journalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frequency Of Scientists' Interactions With Journalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%