Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Communications

The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.707
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.151

CiteScore 2018: 0.86

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.460
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.580

Online
ISSN
1613-4087
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 35, Issue 3

Issues

Repercussion and resistance. An empirical study on the interrelation between science and mass media

Simone Rödder
  • Project Leader at the Institute for Science and Technology Studies (IWT), University of Bielefeld, Germany. E-Mail:
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Mike S. Schäfer
  • Assistant Professor at “Clisap” Cluster of Excellence, University of Hamburg, Germany. E-Mail:
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2010-08-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.014

Abstract

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.

Keywords:: mediatization of science; media coverage; content analysis

About the article

Published Online: 2010-08-26

Published in Print: 2010-09-01


Citation Information: Communications, Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 249–267, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.014.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Josef Pallas, Magnus Fredriksson, and Linda Wedlin
Organization Studies, 2016, Volume 37, Number 11, Page 1661
[3]
Eun Jeong Koh, Sharon Dunwoody, Dominique Brossard, and Joachim Allgaier
Science Communication, 2016, Volume 38, Number 2, Page 170
[5]
Andreas M. Scheu, Anna-Maria Volpers, Annika Summ, and Bernd Blöbaum
Science Communication, 2014, Volume 36, Number 6, Page 706
[6]
Frank Marcinkowski, Matthias Kohring, Silke Fürst, and Andres Friedrichsmeier
Science Communication, 2014, Volume 36, Number 1, Page 56
[7]
Ana Ivanova, Mike S. Schäfer, Inga Schlichting, and Andreas Schmidt
Science Communication, 2013, Volume 35, Number 5, Page 626
[8]
Nienke M. van Atteveldt, Sandra I. van Aalderen-Smeets, Carina Jacobi, Nel Ruigrok, and Amanda Bruce
PLoS ONE, 2014, Volume 9, Number 8, Page e104780
[9]
[10]
Andreas Schmidt, Ana Ivanova, and Mike S. Schäfer
Global Environmental Change, 2013, Volume 23, Number 5, Page 1233
[11]
Andy Williams and Slavko Gajevic
Journalism Studies, 2013, Volume 14, Number 4, Page 507
[12]
Mike S. Schäfer
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2012, Volume 3, Number 6, Page 527

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in