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

TLDR

The study uses the mediatization concept to examine how science and mass media interact, distinguishing changes in media coverage of science and the repercussions of that coverage on science. The authors employ content analysis and expert interviews to empirically investigate these two dimensions of mediatization in science. They find that mediatization occurs only in certain disciplines and phases, involves few media‑visible scientists, and that media‑induced structural change in science is weaker and its media resistance higher than in politics or sports.

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.