Current perspectives of media researchers on the norms of scientific communication

Section: Theory of Journalism and Media

Among media researchers, a survey was conducted, resulting in a total of 321 completed questionnaires. Analysis of the responses and comments revealed that the norms of science described by Robert Merton in the mid-20th century still remain relevant but require additions due to a changing perspective of many researchers on issues of relationships and communication with a broad audience. Respondents emphasize the need and even obligation for scientists to participate in political processes and educational activities, as well as to consider societal interests at all stages of their work. The identified features may be linked to the fact that the field of media research is largely practice-oriented, and its representatives are inclined to both communicate with the mass audience and prioritize society’s needs over the ideals of “pure science.” However, it is difficult to speak of a consensus regarding norms of scientific communication among all community members. The views of respondents largely depend on the social and administrative context in which they work, and these interconnections require additional study.

Alhoori H., Samaka M., Furuta R., Fox E. (2019) Anatomy of scholarly information behavior patterns in the wake of academic social media platforms. J Digit Libr 20, 369–389 (2019).  DOI: 10.1007/s00799-018-0255-9

Anderson M. S., Ronning E. A., Devries R., Martinson B. C. (2010) Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research. The Journal of higher education 81(3), 366–393. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.0.0095

Antopolskii A. B. (2019) Budushchee nauchnykh kommunikatsiy i nauchnoy informatsii [Future of Scientific Communications and Scientific Information]. Information and innovation (1)14: 7–17. 

Barnes S., Dolby R. (1970) The scientific ethos: A deviant viewpoint. European Journal of Sociology 11:3–25

Bennett W. L., Pfetsch B. (2018) ‘Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres’. Journal of Communication 68 (2), pp. 243–253. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqx017 

Besley J. C., Dudo A., Yuan S., Lawrence F. (2018) Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication 40(5), 559–590. DOI: 10.1177/1075547018786561

Besley J. C., Nisbet M. (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science 22(6), 644-659. DOI: 10.1177/0963662511418743

Boero F. (2017) Open access revolutions. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 17:1- 8. DOI: 10.3354/esep00172 

Bucchi M. (1996) ‘When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication’. Public Understanding of Science 5 (4), pp. 375–394. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/005

Couldry N., Hepp A. (2016) The mediated construction of reality. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Wiley. 

Cyranoski D. (2017) Top Chinese university to consider social-media posts in researcher evaluations. Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/news/top-chinese- university-to-consider-social-media-posts-in-researcher-evaluations-1.22822 (accessed: 10.11.2023).

Dunwoody S., Ryan, M. (1985) ‘Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media’. Journal of Communication 35 (1), pp. 26–42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb01882.x

Eagleman D. (2013) Why public dissemination of science matters: a manifesto. J Neurosci 33:12147–12149, DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2556-13.2013

Frias-Navarro D., Pascual-Soler M., Perezgonzalez J., Monterde-i-Bort H., Pascual-Llobell J. (2021) Spanish Scientists’ Opinion about Science and Researcher Behavior. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 24, E7. DOI:10.1017/SJP.2020.59

Gibbs J. (1981) Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters. New York: Elsevier.

Gläser J. (2003) What Internet Use Does and Does Not Change in Scientific Communities. Science & Technology Studies 16(1), pp. 38–51. DOI: 10.23987/sts.55158 

Goodell R. (1977) The visible scientists. Boston, U.S.A.: Little, Brown and Co.

Ho S. S., Looi J., Goh T. J. (2020) Scientists as public communicators: individual- and institutional-level motivations and barriers for public communication in Singapore. Asian Journal of Communication 30:2, 155-178, DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2020.1748072

Hogan N.M., Sweeney K.J. (2013) Social Networking and Scientific Communication: A Paradoxical Return to Mertonian Roots? J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 64: 644-646. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22842

Hyland K. (2015) Academic publishing: issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: OUP.

Hyland K., Jiang F. (2016) Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication 33(3), 251–274. DOI: 10.1177/0741088316650399 

Hyland K., Jiang F. (2017) Points of Reference: Changing Patterns of Academic Citation. Applied Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amx012 

Iston D. (2015) Novaya revolyutsiya v politicheskoy nauke [New revolution in political science]. Judgment Journal 1(1): 1–11. 

Jung A. (2012) ‘Medialization and credibility: paradoxical effect or (re)-stabilization of boundaries? Epidemiology and stem cell research in the press’. The sciences’ media connection — public communication and its repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, pp. 107–130. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_6

Martinez-Conde S. (2016) Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect? Journal of Neuroscience36(7), 2077–2082.

McCarty N. M. (2019) Polarization. What everyone needs to know. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. 

McKee A. E., Stamison C. M., Bahnmaier S. (2014) Creation, Transformation, Dissemination, and Preservation: Advocating for Scholarly Communication. The Serials Librarian 66(1-4), 189–195. DOI: 10.1080/0361526x.2014.877298 

Medvecky F., Leach J. (2019) The Multiple Ethics of Science. An Ethics of Science Communication. Palgrave Pivot. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1_3

Merton R. K. (1973) [1942]. The Normative Structure of Science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278

Migheli M., Ramello G.B. (2013) Open access, social norms and publication choice. Eur J Law Econ 35, 149–167. DOI: 10.1007/s10657-013-9388-x

Mitroff I. (1974) Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review 39 (August): 579-595. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2094423.pdf (accessed: 10.11.2023).

Mulkay M. J. (1976) Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information 15:637–656.

Nerghes A., Mulder B., Lee J. S. (2022) Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands. PLOS ONE 17(12): e0277677. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277677

Peters H. P. (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (Supplement 3), pp. 14102–14109. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212745110. PMID: 23940312.

Pielke R. A. (2007) The Honest Broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Porus V. N., Bazhanov V. A. (2021) Postnormal’naya nauka: mezhdu Stsilloy neopredelennosti i Kharibdoy politizatsii znaniya [Post-normal science: between the Scylla of uncertainty and Charybdis of the politicization of knowledge]. Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics 4. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/postnormalnaya-nauka-mezhdu-stsilloy-neopredelennosti-i-haribdoy-p... (accessed: 07.10.2023).

Post S. (2019) Polarizing communication as media effects on antagonists. Understanding communication in conflicts in digital media societies. Communication Theory 29 (2), pp. 213–235. DOI: 10.1093/ct/qty022 

Rajput A., Sharma S. (2023) An exploratory study of Indian scientists’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in science communication. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 15:4, 415–428, DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2022.2124682

Resnik D. B. (2016) Ethics in science. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science. Oxford University Press.

Rödder S. (2012) The Ambivalence of Visible Scientists. The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions / Rödder S., Franzen M., Weingart P. (eds.) Vol. 28. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 155–177. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8 

Ross-Hellauer T. (2017) What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 6:588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Salwén H. (2021) Research Ethical Norms, Guidance and the Internet. Science and engineering ethics 27(6), 67. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00342-5

Schäfer M. S. (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication 30(4), 475–505.

Schneider S. H. (1986) Both sides of the fence: the scientist as source and author. Scientists and journalists: reporting science as news / Friedman S. M., Dunwoody S., Rogers C. L. (eds.) New York, NY, U.S.A.: Free Press, pp. 215–222. 

Severin A., Egger M., Eve M. P., Hürlimann D. Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research2020, 7:1925 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.17328.2

Shanto I., Douglas S. M. (2019) Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (16) 7656–7661; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805868115 

Shermer M. B. (2002) The view of science Stephen Jay Gould as historian of science and scientific historian, popular scientist and scientific popularizer. Soc Stud Sci 32:489–524, DOI: 10.1177/0306312702032004001

Siler K. (2012) Citation choice and innovation in science studies. Scientometrics 95(1), 385–415.

Slyder J. B., Stein B. R., Sams B. S., Walker D. M., Jacob B., Feldhaus J. J., Copenheaver C. A. (2011) Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics 89(3), 955–966.

Sunstein C. R. (2017) #Republic. Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf (accessed: 10.11.2023).

Tenopir C., Christian L., Kaufman J. (2019) Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers. Publications 7(1):18. DOI: 10.3390/publications7010018 

Tiffany L. A., Hautea S., Besley J. C., Newman T. P., Dudo A. (2022) Effect of context on scientists’ normative beliefs. Science Communication 44(1), 86–107. DOI: 10.1177/10755470211048186 

Trishchenko N. D. (2019) Open Access Driven Transformation of the Scientific Communication System: Current Status, Prerequisites for Change, Effects, and Prospects. Scientific and Technical Information Processing 46. DOI: 10.3103/S0147688219020059 

Van Noorden R. (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 512 (7513), pp. 126–129. DOI: 10.1038/512126a 

Whitworth B., Friedman R. (2009) Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: Rigor, relevance and practice. First Monday 14(8). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v14i8.2609 

To cite this article: Trishchenko N. D., Tybin A. A. (2023) Aktual’nye predstav- leniya issledovateley media o normakh nauchnoy kommunikatsii [Current perspectives of media researchers on the norms of scientific communication]. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 10: Zhurnalistika 6: 37–86. DOI: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.6.2023.3786