SC|MStudies in Communication | Media - RESEARCH-IN-BRIEF - Nomos eLibrary
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SC|M Studies in Communication | Media
RESEARCH-IN-BRIEF
Forschungspolitik in einer medialisierten Konstellation von
Politik, Wissenschaft und Medien
Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations of Politics,
Science, and Media
Bernd Blöbaum, Andreas M. Scheu, Annika Summ, Anna-Maria Volpers
SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012, S. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149,
149-165 am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 149
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBernd Blöbaum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kommunikations
wissenschaft; Kontakt: bernd.bloebaum(at)uni-muenster.de
Andreas M. Scheu, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kommuni
kationswissenschaft; Kontakt: a.scheu(at)uni-muenster.de
Annika Summ, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kommunikations
wissenschaft; Kontakt: annika.summ(at)uni-muenster.de
Anna-Maria Volpers, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Kommuni
kationswissenschaft; Kontakt: amvolpers(at)uni-muenster.de
150 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbRESEARCH-IN-BRIEF
Forschungspolitik in einer medialisierten Konstellation von Politik,
Wissenschaft und Medien
Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations of Politics, Science, and
Media1
Bernd Blöbaum, Andreas M. Scheu, Annika Summ, Anna-Maria Volpers
Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag präsentiert den theoretischen Hintergrund, das ana-
lytische Konzept und das Forschungsdesign eines Projektes über die Governance wissen-
schaftlicher Forschung in medialisierten Konstellationen. Die Studie konzentriert sich da-
bei auf die Rolle von Massenkommunikation in der deutschen Forschungspolitik. Die
forschungsleitenden Fragen sind: Wie beobachten sich Politik und Forschung gegenseitig
über Massenmedien? Welche Einflüsse hat diese wechselseitige Beobachtung? Und wie un-
terscheiden sich hierbei die Fachkulturen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Lebenswis-
senschaften, Naturwissenschaften und Ingenieurwissenschaften? Bezogen auf diese Fragen
entwickeln wir ein Theoriekonzept das „Governance“ als Modus inter-systemischer Inter-
aktion begreift, welcher sowohl von Dynamiken auf der Ebene individueller und kollek-
tiver Akteure als auch von sozialen Strukturen geprägt wird und außerdem davon ausgeht,
dass diese Governance-Konstellation medialisiert ist. Hierauf aufbauend diskutieren wir
unser analytisches Konzept und stellen kurz das Forschungsdesign der Studie dar.
Schlagwörter: Governance von Forschung; Medialisierung von Forschungspolitik;
Forschungsförderung; Fachkulturen
Abstract: This paper presents the theoretical background, analytical concept, and brief
outline of the research design of a project about the governance of scientific research in a
mediatized governance constellation. Our study focuses on the role of mass communica-
tion in the process of science policy regarding scientific research in Germany. The guiding
research questions are: How do politics and sciences observe each other via mass media?
How do such observations influence decision-making? And what differences exist concern-
ing diverse scientific traditions (i.e. humanities/social sciences, life sciences, natural scienc-
es, engineering sciences)? Those questions will be addressed considering a theoretical per-
spective that conceives “governance” as an inter-systemic relationship, which can be
explained as the outcome of dynamics between individual and collective actors and their
actions on the one hand and social structures on the other and that further integrates the
concept of “mediatization”. Based on this, we deduce an analytical concept for empirical
research and briefly outline our research design.
Keywords: Governance of scientific research; mediatization of science policy; funding of
research; scientific traditions
1 This paper is based on a presentation at the 61st annual conference of the International Commu-
nication Association (ICA) from May 26th to May 30th 2011 in Boston, Massachusetts.
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 151
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
This paper presents the theoretical (cf. Benz, Lütz, Schimank, & Simonis,
background and brief outline of the re- 2007a; Jansen, 2007; Puppis, 2010).
search design of a project about the The concept of governance also takes
governance of scientific research in a into account actions of different stake-
mediatized governance constellation. holders with varying intentions (key-
Our study focuses on the role of mass word: actor constellations) as well as
communication in the process of sci- the structural level of such constella-
ence policy regarding scientific re- tions (keyword: actor-structure dy-
search in Germany. The guiding re- namics) (cf. Schimank, 2007a; Schi-
search questions are: How do politics mank, 2007b; Schimank, 2007c).
and science observe each other via Furthermore, we examine the govern-
mass media? How do such observa- ance of science from the perspective of
tions influence decision-making? And communication science and assume
what differences exist concerning di- that the governance of science is medi-
verse scientific traditions (i.e. humani- atized (cf. Cohen, Tsfati, & Sheafer,
ties/social sciences, life sciences, natu- 2008; Marcinkowski & Pfetsch, 2009;
ral sciences, engineering sciences)? The Meyen, 2009; Tsfati, Cohen, &
project started in August 2010 and will Gunther, 2010). We therefore suggest
be finished by July 2013. It is part of understanding the relation between
an interdisciplinary network of pro- politics and science as a “mediatized
jects about new governance of science, governance constellation”. In short,
which aims at providing scientific sup- this means that mass communication
port for political problems. plays an important role for scientific
Below, we will introduce our theo- and political actors who use mass com-
retical perspective that conceives “gov- munication in order to observe and in-
ernance” as an inter-systemic relation- fluence each other; that those actors
ship, which can be explained as the adapt to media logic in order to opti-
outcome of dynamics between individ- mize their chances of influencing each
ual and collective actors and their ac- other; and that media and journalistic
tions on the one hand and social struc- actors have to be regarded as parts of
tures on the other (cf. Schimank, 2010) this constellation. It is also suggested
and that further integrates the concept that media affect the way decision
of “mediatization” (cf. Marcinkowski makers in politics and science evaluate
& Steiner, 2009; Meyen, 2009). We specific issues, e.g. how politicians as-
conclude by briefly outlining the re- sess stem cell research as well as the
search design. demand for regulation or funding of
stem cell research (cf. Böcking, 2009)
1 Theoretical Framework or nanotechnology (cf. Ho, Scheufele,
& Corley, 2010). The importance of
In summary, science policy cannot be mass communication in this constella-
satisfactorily described as a one-way tion lies in the benefits that the media
process of regulation. Instead, we refer system provides for other systems (cf.
to the concept of governance which al- Blöbaum, 1994; Blöbaum, 2004; Mar-
lows us to analyze science policy as a cinkowski & Steiner, 2009) and be-
complex and interrelated social pro- cause social actors believe that mass
cess involving diverse social systems communication influences other actors
152 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
and therefore adapt accordingly (cf. on different forms of co-ordination,
Gunther & Storey, 2003, p. 199). mutual influences, and the combinati-
on of those (cf. Benz, Lütz, Schimank,
1.1 Basic theoretical concepts & Simonis, 2007b, pp. 15-16; Kastri-
nos, 2010, p. 298; Schimank, 2007a)
Our perspective on science policy in and understands the process of regula-
Germany is mainly characterized by tion as “a multistakeholder process
theories of governance, social systems, with actors drawn from market and
and actor-structure dynamics as well
civil society institutions as well as from
as the concept of mediatization. An es-
government” (Crozier, 2007, p. 3).
sential part of our analysis is the at-
Even though the concept leaves behind
tempt to mediate between theoretical
former, more linear perspectives such
positions of individual or collective ac-
tions on the one hand and social sys- as cybernetics or regulation, it still im-
tems and structures on the other and plies that the political system is able to
to research consequences of mediatiza- mold social reality by influencing other
tion on both levels (cf. figure 1). social systems – in our case the system
The concept of governance offers a of science. However, sociology, com-
way to analyze both relations between munication science, and political sci-
social systems and interrelations of in- ence discuss controversially how and
dividual as well as institutional actors. to which degree the political system is
The perspective of governance focuses able to do so.
Figure 1: Concept to analyze interactions between systems within the governance
constellation of science policy, structural influences, and consequences of media-
tization regarding the modes of interaction and social structures
Source: Schimank, 2010, p. 214
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 153
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
Social systems are considered to be social systems, too (cf. Besley & Shan-
self-referential and autonomous in ahan, 2005; Ho, Scheufele, & Corley,
principle and can be distinguished ac- 2010; Horst, 2008; Reis, 2008; Salter
cording to their exclusive functionality & Salter, 2010; Stewart, Dickerson, &
for society (cf. Luhmann, 1997, pp. Hotchkiss, 2009).
743-749). From this perspective, direct The concept of actor-structure dy-
inter-systemic influence does not seem namics (cf. Schimank, 2005a) can ex-
possible. Yet, we argue that social sys- plain the coupling of social systems as
tems are structurally coupled – even interplay of actions that are conducted
though the extent to which the systems by different actors of diverse social sys-
are coupled may differ (cf. Luhmann, tems. Three modes of action seem espe-
1997, p. 92-120; Schimank, 2007d, p. cially relevant: Observations represent
152). In all cases, however, attempts to the basic mode of action and are the
influence a certain system are usually precondition for any kind of influences,
perceived and dealt with internally as and negotiations are based on both ob-
irritations. Therefore, even though in- servations and mutual influences (cf.
ter-systemic influences may be inten- Schimank, 2007b). All three modes of
tional, their effects are mostly not in- action lead to dynamics that may result
tended (cf. Schimank, 2010, p. 197). in changes or adaptations on the struc-
Researching inter-systemic coupling tural level. This affects the structure of
and its effects has become part of the constellations [“Konstellationsstruk-
social sciences. One example of one so- turen”] (e.g. hierarchical structure of
cial system provoking changes in other actors), different forms of expectational
social systems is the widespread adap- structures [“Erwartungsstrukturen”]
tation to economic principles (key- (e.g. institutionalized normative stand-
word: economization) (Schimank, ards), and interpretive structures
2007d, p. 149). Other examples in- [“Deutungsstrukturen”] (e.g. the codes
clude the establishment of legal depart- that regulate and characterize social
ments in economic or media organiza- systems) (cf. Schimank, 2007b, pp.
tions that reflect the influence of the 125-127).
legal system, or the integration of re- As stated above, we analyze science
search departments in companies, re- policy in mediatized governance con-
sembling the influence of the scientific stellations. The basic premise of media-
system. The system of science makes tization is that the need for mass com-
no exception. For example, universities munication as a way to mediate
have to follow political decisions (e.g. information across social systems in-
Bachelor/Masters reform in Germany), creases in modern societies (keyword:
curricula have to meet certain legal de- media society) (cf. Hjavard, 2008; Liv-
mands (e.g. constitutional rights, study ingstone, 2009; Lundby, 2009, pp. 1f.;
regulations), and appeals procedures Mazzoleni, 2008b). This leads to “ac-
also depend on how much money uni- commodation” (Schulz, 2004, pp. 89f.)
versities and institutes can afford to to mass media logic (cf. Altheide &
spend. Furthermore, sensitive issues Snow, 1979). Therefore, research about
such as stem cell research, nanotech- mediatization is usually concerned
nology, genetic engineering, or climate with the process of social change and
change may influence or irritate other assumes that this process is – at least
154 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
partly – influenced by mass communi- Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2009, pp.
cation. The majority of studies in the 11f.). Thus, mediatization can affect
field of mediatization therefore con- the evolvement of structures that in-
centrate on the process of mediatiza- crease social systems’ abilities to effi-
tion and on changes within certain so- ciently and strategically cope with
cial systems (e.g. politics, science, their environments. According to Uwe
economy, etc.) over time. Such research Schimank, such structures regulate
seems to be most promising when im- constellations of actors, formal and in-
plying longitudinal designs (cf. Meyen, formal (normative) expectations, and
2009, pp. 35f.). interpretations of social reality (cf.
However, the study at hand takes a Schimank, 2010, pp. 204ff.). Taking
different approach. We regard the me- “constellations” into account, we are
diatization of modern societies as a ba- interested in the actor constellation
sic condition of science policy. This as- that results from the system of research
sumption is suggested by various funding in Germany and in character-
studies about the mediatization of pol- istics of this constellation that are re-
itics (cf. e.g. Donges, 2008; Kepplinger, lated to mass communication. The
2002; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; term “expectations” refers to norma-
Mazzoleni, 2008a; Schulz, 2006; Spör- tive structures – such as professional
er-Wagner & Marcinkowski, 2010; roles or institutionalized moral stand-
Vowe, 2006) and science (cf. e.g. Mae- ards – that might also be characterized
seele, 2007; Peters, Heinrichs, Jung, by mass communication and journal-
Kallfass, & Petersen, 2008; Schäfer, ism. With “interpretations”, Schimank
2007; Schäfer, 2008; Weingart, 2001, summarizes the “core” of social sys-
pp. 244ff.; Weingart, 2003, pp. 113ff.), tems that regulates their functioning
both of which constitute the essential (cf. Schimank, 2005a, pp. 39ff.). Ex-
social systems regarding science policy. amples are so called systemic codes or
This starting point yields consequences professional ideologies.
for our research design. Instead of fo- Considering the level of interactions,
cusing on process, we are rather inter- mediatization implies that political and
ested in the consequences of mediatiza- scientific actors mutually observe each
tion within a certain field of action: other mainly via mass communication,
science policy. and individual as well as collective ac-
Since individual actions influence tors adapt to the requirements of mass
structural developments as well as vice media (keyword: media logic) (cf. Spör-
versa (cf. Bourdieu, 1984; Giddens, er-Wagner & Marcinkowski, 2010, p.
2008; Hjavard, 2008; Schimank, 9) for strategic purposes. Mediatization
2010), consequences of mediatization on this level describes ‘second level me-
may manifest themselves on the struc- dia effects’ (cf. Meyen, 2009, pp. 23f.)
tural level as well as the level of inter- or the “influence of presumed media
actions. On the structural level, any influence” (Cohen, Tsfati, & Sheafer,
social system – to a certain degree – 2008, p. 331; Tsfati, Cohen, &
may adapt to journalistic requirements Gunther, 2011, p. 143). Another facet
because the unique service of establish- of mediatization on the level of interac-
ing public attention becomes increas- tions can be seen in the fact that “pub-
ingly important in modern societies (cf. licity becomes important as an alterna-
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 155
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
tive power source” (Spörer-Wagner & of stakeholders within the governance
Marcinkowski, 2010, p. 8) for involved constellation of science policy, too.
actors. We therefore are especially in- This interest of research leads us to
terested in how (individual and collec- the analytical categories summarized
tive) actors observe and influence each in figure 2 and a cross-sectional re-
other using mass communication – search design consisting of a content
even though this distinction is analyti- analysis and semi-standardized inter-
cal and the boundaries between observ- views of decision-makers from the field
ing and influencing seem to be rather of science policy.
fluid in everyday life, for example when
actors adapt their public appearances 1.2 Science policy in mediatized
according to media logic in order to governance constellations
strategically frame the observations of
other stakeholders. Furthermore, be- Research about science policy in medi-
cause of the role of mass communica- atized governance constellations has to
tion in this context, journalistic actors take into account national particulari-
have to be regarded as a relevant group ties. This can be realized by compara-
Figure 2: Analytical categories and guiding questions
156 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
tive studies or by in-depth analyses of egies to deal with perceived attacks
single countries. This study researches against their scientific freedom. The
science policy in Germany and consid- role of mass communication in this
ers national particularities with regard constellation seems diverse. On the one
to the media system (e.g. dual broad- hand, access to journalism and mass
casting system), the systems of politics communication can be seen as a poten-
(e.g. legal system regulating the free- tial source of autonomy of science be-
dom of research; division of responsi- cause journalism may provide certain
bilities for science funding between benefits for the scientific system (e.g.
state and federal political institutions), public legitimization). On the other
and science (e.g. university structures). hand, this may also lead to an increase
Recent developments within the Ger- of heteronomy (e.g. adaption to media
man higher education system offer logic). But either way, mass communi-
genuine research opportunities as well cation increases public access to sci-
as an increased political demand for ence policy issues and is thereby rele-
such research. Traditionally, the Ger- vant for the governance of scientific
man “Humboldtian” higher education research (cf. Maeseele, 2007, p. 1;
system is characterized by the combi- Woolley, 1998).
nation of state funding and regulation The main stakeholders considering
on the one hand and “constitutional the governance of scientific research
guarantees of the ‘freedom of teaching obviously are connected to the social
and research’” (Schimank, 2005b) on systems of politics and science. How-
the other, which results in relatively ever, inter-systemic communication not
low institutional and relatively high in- only takes place directly but can also
dividual autonomy (cf. Schubert & be accomplished via mass communica-
Schmoch, 2010, p. 246). Recently, this tion. Therefore, due to our aims of re-
system has been subject to reforms that search and the theoretical approach of
lead towards increased heteronomy (cf. “mediatized governance constella-
Schimank, 2005b). This includes pro- tions” mentioned above, we also con-
cesses of standardization (keywords: sider the journalistic system as a rele-
Bologna Process, European Higher vant part of the constellation.
Education Area), the changeover to a Furthermore, each social system seems
Bachelor/Master structure, the imple- to provide interfaces to improve the ef-
mentation of (external) evaluation, and ficiency of communication with others.
incentive funding (cf. Auranen & Figure 3 offers an illustration of what
Nieminen, 2010; Schimank, 2005b). we aim to analyze as “mediatized gov-
Policy-makers thereby intend to in- ernance constellation of science policy
crease the efficiency, competitiveness regarding scientific research”.
and relevance of scientific institutions. The core element of science policy
It is likely that scientific actors – who regarding research in Germany is fun-
until now have been (and probably ding (cf. Hinze, 2010) – above all fi-
still are) characterized by their relative nancial funding but also structural or
autonomy compared to actors from ideological funding. Responsibilities
other social systems – do not always are split between the federal and state
consider such changes as improve- governments. Funding programs are
ments but also develop defensive strat- intended to increase the efficiency,
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 157
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
Figure 3: Illustration of interrelations in the mediatized governance constellation
of science policy considering the social systems “politics”, “science”, and “journal-
ism” as well as the role of media coverage within this constellation
competitiveness or relevance of scienti- makers in politics (federal and state
fic institutions (cf. Kastrinos, 2010). level) and funding organizations.
Other aims of funding mainly concern Within the system of science, we
individual research areas, interdiscipli- focus on three types of institutionali
nary co-operations, co-operations of zation: universities, non-university
universities and institutions in the pri- research institutes and academic disci-
vate sector, or training of junior scien- plines. Universities are the most popu-
tists (cf. Gläser & Lange, 2007, pp. lar manifestation of research funding
444f.). Between political and scientific in Germany (cf. Auranen & Nieminen,
2010). Therefore, it is not surprising
actors, funding organizations and insti-
that a huge amount of governmental
tutes occupy an important position:
funding is addressed directly at univer-
They are responsible for evaluating re-
sities or is invested in specific funding
search designs and the appropriateness
organizations (e.g. German Research
of funding and thereby mediate bet-
Foundation (DFG)). What is more, the
ween the social systems of politics and federal government recently initiated
science (cf. Gläser & Lange, 2007, p. the so called “excellence initiative” – a
445). This becomes even more impor- competitive procedure to allocate
tant because recent developments indi- funding of universities. There seems to
cate a trend towards an allocation be a “general tendency for states to in-
practice that is based on competition crease the conditionality of their re-
(cf. Kastrinos, 2010, p. 302). Regar- search funding by making more re-
ding the social system of politics, this sources dependent on competitive
study therefore focuses on decision- bidding for research projects” (Whitley
158 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
& Gläser, 2007, p. 10). The trend to- policy (cf. Dunwoody, 2008). Bearing
wards competitive allocation proce- in mind that many freelancers work in
dures (cf. Hornbostel & Olbrecht, this field and that definitions of “sci-
2008, p. 55) based on quantity and ence journalist” vary, it is rather diffi-
quality of research seems to constitute cult, however, to identify those journal-
structural disadvantages for actors ists (cf. Blöbaum, 2008, p. 248).
working at universities because they Science journalists working for nation-
have to split their budget of time be- al quality media supposedly are the
tween teaching and research (cf. Horn- most relevant actors in this constella-
bostel & Olbrecht, 2008, p. 52). Non- tion because of the media usage of de-
university research institutions in cision makers (cf. Chodura, 2006;
Germany developed only after 1945 Harmgarth, 1997) and because they
and now already receive financial re- are relevant regarding intermedia
sources that amount to about 60 per agenda setting (cf. McCombs, 2004, p.
cent of what is available for research at 114; Protess & McCombs, 1991). We
universities (cf. Hohn, 2010, p. 457). also include journalistic actors work-
Last but not least, academic disciplines ing for regional newspapers that cover
constitute the institutional core of all regions in which research institutes
sciences. From the socialization of have established. Media in such areas
young scientists to decisions over fund- report differently about science than
ing, the essential processes take place others (cf. Blöbaum & Görke, 2006).
within disciplinary boundaries (cf. Besides newspapers, we also consider
Bourdieu, 2004). Scientific disciplines television, radio and online communi-
can be distinguished according to their cation as important influences with re-
scientific tradition – the German Re- gard to mediatization and influences
search Foundation (DFG) differenti- on decision makers (cf. Dunwoody,
ates between the traditions of humani- 2008, pp. 22f.; Gurevitch, Coleman, &
ties/social sciences, life sciences, Blumler, 2009; Maeseele & Desmet,
natural sciences, and engineering sci- 2009; Merzagora, 2004).
ences. Considering the study at hand,
this implies that we consider decision 2 Methodological concept
makers representing different scientific
traditions and who work at both uni- The theoretical concept introduced
versities and non-university research above leads to a concept of research
institutes. which includes two methodological
Another group of actors that we steps. The first step focuses on media
take a closer look at – since they seem coverage about scientific research and
to be relevant in the mediatized con- science policy, the second on the differ-
stellation of the governance of scientif- ent stakeholders within the governance
ic research – are actors from the jour- constellation. Accordingly, we conduct
nalistic system specializing in science a content analysis and semi-structured
communication or science policy. interviews.
These specialized roles are of interest The content analysis covers the year
for our study because journalists who 2011 and different types of media
assume such roles shape the media including national newspapers and
coverage about science and science news magazines, regional newspapers,
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 159
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
TV news broadcasts and TV science actions of stakeholders (e.g. criticism,
broadcasts, a radio news broadcast recommendations, demands, protests,
and radio science broadcasts as well as assurances, or evaluations) and specific
an online news website (cf. figure 4). parts concerning reports about science
policy, reports that refer to eight select-
Figure 4: Selected media for content ed disciplines, and reports about scien-
analysis tific research in general (cf. Figure 5).
Due to our main interest of research
about the role of journalism consider-
ing the governance of scientific re-
search, we firstly collect data about the
media coverage of science policy is-
sues. Considering this, we are –
amongst others – especially interested
in data about the network of stake-
holders mentioned in media coverage
about science policy and in instru-
ments of science policy discussed in the
selected reports. Secondly, we analyze
media reports that cover one of eight
selected disciplines representing either
social sciences/humanities, life sciences,
natural sciences or engineering scienc-
es. We selected disciplines that all – in
their own way – deal with current
questions, risks, or problems concern-
ing society: political science and phi-
losophy (social sciences/humanities),
virology and agricultural science (life-
sciences), food chemistry and geophys-
ics (natural sciences) as well as com-
puter science and resources/recycling
(engineering). In this part of the con-
tent analysis, we code reports about
scientific research and also consider
reports about more general topics that
contain references to the disciplines
mentioned. By this, we will be able to
The content analysis consists of a gen- compare media reports about different
eral part including all selected media disciplines and scientific traditions as
reports and containing variables such well as gain information about the
as journalistic style, topic, cause for public image of the selected disciplines.
news coverage, geographical referenc- Exemplary variables in this part are
es, disciplines mentioned, associated evaluations of the selected disciplines
scientific cultures, societal contexts or the functionality of references to
mentioned, stakeholders, and strategic scientific research in mass media re-
160 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
ports. In order to be able to contextu- cal research institutes, German science
alize this data, we – thirdly – also code council), and journalism that are based
basic characteristics of general reports on first findings. By interviewing politi-
about scientific research regardless of cal and scientific actors, we aim to find
the associated disciplines (e.g. refer- out how they use mass media in order
ences to scientific publications, refer- to observe other stakeholders within
ences to applications of research, the governance constellation, whether
chances/risks of scientific research, they adapt their actions to what they
controversity, etc.). observe via mass media, and whether
During the second phase of the project their observations influence decisions.
we conduct semi-structured interviews By combining content analysis and in-
with decision-makers from the social terviews, we hope to offer a holistic
systems politics (e.g. national and fed- picture of the role of mass communica-
eral science policy, political parties, tion within the governance constella-
funding organizations), science (e.g. tion of scientific research in Germany.
universities, research institutes, disci-
plinary associations), interfaces be-
tween politics and science (e.g. politi-
Figure 5: Structure of codebook and exemplary variables
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 161
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
References Blöbaum, B., & Görke, A. (2006). Quellen
und Qualität im Wissenschaftsjournal-
Altheide, D.L., & Snow, R.P. (1979). Media
ismus. Befragung und Inhaltsanalyse
logic. Beverly Hills, California: Sage
zur Life-Science-Berichterstattung. In S.
Publications.
Weischenberg (Ed.), Medien-Qual-
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). Uni-
itäten. Öffentliche Kommunikation
versity research funding and publica-
zwischen ökonomischen Kalkül und So-
tion performance. An international
zialverantwortung (pp. 313-328). Kon-
comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822-
834. stanz: UVK.
Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Si- Böcking, T. (2009). Strategisches Framing.
monis, G. (Eds.). (2007a). Handbuch Gesellschaftliche Akteure und ihre Ein-
Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen flussnahmeversuche auf die mediale De-
und empirische Anwendungsfelder. batte über die embryonale Stammzell-
Wiesbaden: VS. forschung in Deutschland. Köln:
Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Si- Halem.
monis, G. (2007b). Einleitung. In A. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social
Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Si- Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
monis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Boston: Harvard University Press.
theoretische Grundlagen und em- Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and
pirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 9-26). reflexivity. Chicago: The University of
Wiesbaden: VS. Chicago Press.
Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media Chodura, J. (2006). Mediennutzung von
attention and exposure in relation to Politikern. In N. Huber, & M. Meyen
support for agricultural biotechnology. (Eds.), Medien im Alltag. Qualitative
Science Communication, 26(4), 347- Studien zu Nutzungsmotiven und zur
367. Bedeutung von Medienangeboten (pp.
Blöbaum, B. (1994). Journalismus als sozi- 45-60). Berlin: Lit.
ales System: Geschichte, Ausdifferen-
Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. (2008).
zierung und Verselbständigung. Oplad-
The influence of presumed media influ-
en: Westdeutscher Verlag.
ence in politics. Do politicians’ percep-
Blöbaum, B. (2004). Organisationen, Pro-
tions of media power matter? Public
gramme und Rollen. Die Struktur des
Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 331-344.
Journalismus in systemtheoretischer
Crozier, M. (2007). Recursive governance.
Perspektive. In M. Löffelholz (Ed.),
Contemporary political communication
Theorien des Journalismus. Ein diskur-
sives Handbuch (pp. 201-215). Wies- and public policy. Political Communi-
baden: VS. cation, 24(1), 1-18.
Blöbaum, B. (2008). Wissenschaftsjournal- Donges, P. (2008). Medialisierung politisch-
isten in Deutschland: Profil, Tätigkeiten er Organisationen. Parteien in der Me-
und Rollenverständnis. In H. Hettwer, diengesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS.
M. Lehmkuhl, H. Wormer, & F. Zotta Dunwoody, S. (2008). Science journalism.
(Eds.), WissensWelten. Wissenschafts- In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Hand-
journalismus in Theorie und Praxis (pp. book of public communication of sci-
245-256). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stif- ence and technology (pp. 15-26). Lon-
tung. don: Routledge.
162 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
Giddens, A. (2008). The constitution of so- H. Hettwer, M. Lehmkuhl, H. Wormer,
ciety: outline of the theory of structura- & F. Zotta (Eds.), WissensWelten. Wis-
tion. Cambridge: Polity Press. senschaftsjournalismus in Theorie und
Gläser, J. & Lange, S. (2007). Wissenschaft. Praxis (pp. 45-63). Gütersloh: Bertels-
In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. mann Stiftung.
Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Horst, M. (2008). The laboratory of public
theoretische Grundlagen und em- debate: Understanding the acceptability
pirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 437- of stem cell research. Science and Pub-
451). Wiesbaden: VS. lic Policy, 35(3), 197-205.
Gunther, A.C., & Storey, J.D. (2003). The Jansen, D. (Ed.). (2007). New forms of gov-
influence of presumed influence. Jour- ernance in research organizations.
nal of Communication, 53(2), 199-215. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, Kastrinos, N. (2010). Policies for co-ordi-
J.G. (2009). Political communication - nation in the European research area: A
old and new media relationships. The view from the social sciences and hu-
ANNALS of the American Academy of manities. Science and Public Policy,
Political and Social Science, (625), 164- 37(4), 297-310.
181.
Kepplinger, H.M. (2002). Mediatization of
Harmgarth, F. (1997). Wirtschaft und Sozi-
politics: Theory and data. Journal of
ales in der politischen Kommunikation:
Communication, 52(4), 972-986.
Eine Studie zur Interaktion von Ab-
Livingstone, S. (2009). Foreword: Coming
geordneten und Journalisten. Opladen:
to terms with ‘mediatization’. In K.
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept,
Hinze, S. (2010). Forschungsförderung in
changes, consequences (pp. ix-xi). New
Deutschland. In D. Simon, S. Hornbos-
York: Peter Lang.
tel, & A. Knie (Eds.), Handbuch Wis-
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der
senschaftspolitik (pp. 162-175). Wies-
Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main:
baden: VS.
Suhrkamp.
Hjavard, S. (2008). The mediatization of
society. A theory of the media as agents Lundby, K. (2009). Introduction: ‘mediati-
of social and cultural change. Nordi- zation’ as key. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Me-
com Review, 29(2), 105-134. diatization: Concept, changes, conse-
Ho, S., Scheufele, D.A., & Corley, E.A. quences (pp. 1-18). New York: Peter
(2010). Value predispositions, mass me- Lang.
dia, and attitudes toward nanotechnol- Maeseele, P. (2007). Science and technolo-
ogy: The interplay of public and ex- gy in a mediatized and democratized
perts. Science Communication. society. Journal of Science Communica-
Advance online publication, 1-34. tion, 6(1), 1-10.
Hohn, H. (2010). Außeruniversitäre Maeseele, P., & Desmet, L. (2009). Science
Forschungseinrichtungen. In D. Simon, on television: How? like that! Journal
S. Hornbostel, & A. Knie (Eds.), Hand- of Science Communication, 8(4), 1-10.
buch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 457- Marcinkowski, F., & Pfetsch, B. (2009).
477). Wiesbaden: VS. Problemlagen der “Mediendemokratie”
Hornbostel, S., & Olbrecht, M. (2008). Wer – Theorien und Befunde zur Medial-
forscht hier eigentlich? Die Organisa- isierung von Politik. In F. Marcinkows-
tion der Wissenschaft in Deutschland. In ki, & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Politik in der
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 163
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbResearch-in-brief
Mediendemokratie (pp. 11-34). Wies- Puppis, M. (2010). Media governance: A
baden: VS. new concept for the analysis of media
Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2009). policy and regulation. Communication,
Was heißt “Medialisierung”? Autono- Culture & Critique, 3(2), 134-149.
miebeschränkung oder Ermöglichung Reis, R. (2008). How brazilian and north
von Politik durch Massenmedien? Na- american newspapers frame the stem
tional Center of Competence in Re- cell research debate. Science Communi-
search (NCCR): Challenges to Democ- cation, 29(3), 316-334.
racy in the 21st Century. Working Paper Salter, B., & Salter, C. (2010). Governing
No. 29, 1-25. Retrieved from http:// innovation in the biomedicine knowl-
www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/publica- edge economy: Stem cell science in the
tions/workingpaper/pdf/WP29.pdf. USA. Science and Public Policy, 37(2),
Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Me- 87-100.
diatization” of politics: A challenge for Schäfer, M.S. (2007). Wissenschaft in den
democracy? Political Communication, Medien. Wiesbaden: VS.
16(3), 247-261. Schäfer, M.S. (2008). Medialisierung der
Mazzoleni, G. (2008a). Mediatization of Wissenschaft? Empirische Untersu-
politics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The In- chung eines wissenschaftssoziologis-
ternational Encyclopedia of Communi- chen Konzepts. Zeitschrift für Soziolo-
cation, Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell gie, 37(3), 206-225. Retrieved from
Reference Online. http://www.zfs-online.org/index.php/
McCombs, M.E. (2004). Setting the agen- zfs/article/viewFile/1272/809.
da: the mass media and public opinion. Schimank, U. (2005a). Differenzierung und
Cambridge: Polity. Integration der modernen Gesellschaft.
Merzagora, M. (2004). Science on air: The Wiesbaden: VS.
role of radio in science communication. Schimank, U. (2005b). ‘New public man-
Journal of Science Communication, agement’ and the academic profession:
3(4), 1-6. Reflections on the German situation.
Meyen, M. (2009). Medialisierung. Medien Minerva, 43(4), 361-376.
& Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57(1), Schimank, U. (2007a). Die Governance-
23-38. Perspektive: Analytisches Potenzial und
Peters, H.P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kall- anstehende konzeptionelle Fragen. In
fass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medial- H. Altrichter, T. Brüsemeister, & J.
isierung der Wissenschaft als Vorausset- Wissinger (Eds.), Educational Govern-
zung ihrer Legitimierung und ance (pp. 231-260). Wiesbaden: VS.
politischer Relevanz. In R. Mayntz, N. Schimank, U. (2007b). Handeln in Konstel-
Friedhelm, P. Weingart, & U. Wengen- lationen: Die reflexive Konstitution von
roth (Eds.), Wissensproduktion und handelndem Zusammenwirken und so-
Wissenstransfer: Wissen im Spannungs- zialen Strukturen. In K. Altmeppen, T.
feld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Hanitzsch, & C. Schlüter (Eds.), Jour-
Öffentlichket (pp. 267-292). Bielefeld: nalismustheorie: Next Generation. Soz-
transcript. iologische Grundlegung und theore-
Protess, D.L., & McCombs, M.E. (1991). tische Innovation (pp. 121-137).
Agenda setting: readings on media, Wiesbaden: VS.
public opinion, and policymaking. Schimank, U. (2007c). Elementare Mecha-
Hillsdale: Erlbaum. nismen. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schi-
164 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 SCM, 1. Jg., 1/2012
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbBlöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers | Science Policy in Mediatized Constellations
mank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Medien in der
Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Vel-
und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. brück Wissenschaft.
29-45). Wiesbaden: VS. Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziolo-
Schimank, U. (2007d). Theorien gesells- gie. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum-Fischer.
chaftlicher Differenzierung. Lehrbuch: Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (Eds.). (2007). The
VS. changing governance of the sciences:
Schimank, U. (2010). Handeln und Struk- The advent of research evaluation sys-
turen. Einführung in die akteurtheore- tems. Dordrecht: Springer.
tische Soziologie: Juventa. Woolley, M. (1998). Populism and scientific
Schubert, T., & Schmoch, U. (2010). Finan- decision making. Science Communica-
zierung der Hochschulforschung. In D. tion, 20(1), 52-55.
Simon, A. Knie, & S. Hornbostel (Eds.),
Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp.
244-261). Wiesbaden: VS.
Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediati-
zation as an analytical concept. Euro-
pean Journal of Communication, 19(1),
87-101.
Schulz, W. (2006). Medialisierung von
Wahlkämpfen und die Folgen für das
Wählerverhalten. In K. Imhof, R. Blum,
H. Bonfadelli, & O. Jarren (Eds.),
Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft
(pp. 41-57). Wiesbaden: VS.
Spörer-Wagner, D., & Marcinkowski, F.
(2010). Is talk always silver and silence
golden? The mediatisation of political
bargaining. Javnost – The Public, 17(2),
5-25.
Stewart, C.O., Dickerson, D.L., & Hotch-
kiss, R. (2009). Beliefs about science
and news frames in audience evalua-
tions of embryonic and adult stem cell
research. Science Communication,
30(4), 427-452.
Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J., & Gunther, A.C.
(2011). The influence of presumed me-
dia influence on news about science and
scientists. Science Communication,
33(2), 143-166.
Vowe, G. (2006). Mediatisierung der Poli-
tik? Ein theoretischer Ansatz auf dem
Prüfstand. Publizistik, 51(4), 437-455.
Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahr-
heit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149, am 20.09.2021, 12:09:46 165
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agbYou can also read
