Abstract
The concept of medialization of science as understood in this contribution rests on the distinction developed in differentiation theory between different functional systems in society. Although it is debated if the media are such a system science undoubtedly is. The crucial criterion is the delineation of different ‘publics’ that are addressed by communication. In the case of science the ‘public’ is that of the respective disciplinary or sub-disciplinary practitioners. The expansion of this public to the mass media poses questions such as what happens to the choice of research questions, to quality control of research findings, to the criteria of relevance and reliability, i.e. to self-referentiality of science in general. On the other hand, there are good reasons to regard the delineation of the relevant publics as ‘fuzzy’ which forces one to consider different forms and degrees of medialization as reality not necessarily posing a threat to the pursuit of certified knowledge. The chapter provides a theoretical discussion of medialization from the point of view of the sociology of science which may serve a framework for empirical studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term ‘media’ in this context relates to mass media only, i.e., any media which are produced by editorial staffs and are addressed to an unspecific public (regardless of its special profile of interests targeted by the media, see below). The obvious ones are newspapers, television, radio and web-based news media (see Chapter 1).
- 2.
Historically, the role of popularizer has become quasi professionalized at the end of the nineteenth century. Till today borderline examples come to mind: Gould, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. However, they do not falsify the claim.
- 3.
As argued above, this differs among disciplines. In some fields in the humanities (e.g., history, literary sciences), the educated public of highbrow newspapers is a legitimate source of reputation. But even in these fields the ultimate criterion is acclaim from peers, as the Goldhagen case has demonstrated.
- 4.
It is interesting, though not a counter argument, that nano scientists, after having had success with their public propaganda in capturing media and political attention, have shrugged back from it, presumably for fear of becoming its victims (Lit. in Kaiser et al. 2010; for genome researchers see Rödder 2009).
- 5.
This illustrates, by the way, why the orientation to other relevant references is analytically akin to scientific misconduct. In many cases (e.g., Hwang, Schön) media hype triggered by Science and/or Nature played a role.
References
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public, Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 99–113.
Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375–394.
Cloître, M. and T. Shinn (1985). Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemological linkages. In M. Cloître and T. Shinn (eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularization. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 31–60.
Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.
Espeland, W. and M. Sauder (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
Europäische Kommission (ed.) (2010). Eurobarometer Science and Technology Report.
Fleck, L. (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Franzen, M. (2011). Breaking news. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften im Kampf um Aufmerksamkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403–436.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kaiser, M., et al. (eds.) (2010). Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Yearbook Sociology of the Sciences 27. Dordrecht: Springer.
Maasen, S. and P. Weingart (2000). Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. London/New York: Routledge.
Peters, H. P., et al. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimation and political relevance. In D. Cheng et al. (eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 71–92.
Rödder, S. (2009). Wahrhaft sichtbar. Humangenomforscher in der Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(9), 869–879.
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62, 117–131.
Weingart, P. and P. Pansegrau (1999). Reputation in science and prominence in the media – The Goldhagen Debate. Public Understanding of Science, 8(1), 1–16.
Weingart, P., A. Engels, and P. Pansegrau (2007). Von der Hypothese zur Katastrophe. Der anthropogene Klimawandel im Diskurs zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Massenmedien. With cooperation of Tillmann Hornschuh (2nd ed.). Leverkusen Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weingart, P. (2012). The Lure of the Mass Media and Its Repercussions on Science. In: Rödder, S., Franzen, M., Weingart, P. (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2084-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2085-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)