Lars Guenther analysiert die Gründe für die jeweilige Berichterstattung über wissenschaftliche Evidenz von Wissenschaftsjournalisten vor dem Hintergrund des Spannungsverhältnisses Wissenschaft - Journalismus - Öffentlichkeit. Die Ergebnisse der eigenen Studien, die Erkenntnisse aus Inhaltsanalysen und Befragungen zusammenfassen, verweisen auf die dominante Rolle des Publikums: So machen Journalisten ihre Entscheidung, wie wissenschaftliche Evidenz dargestellt wird, vorrangig davon abhängig, wie stark sie glauben, dass ihre Leser und Zuhörer erwarten, dass Forschungsergebnisse eher gesichert oder ungesichert präsentiert werden sollen. Der Inhalt Wissenschaftsjournalismus und wissenschaftliche Evidenz Inhaltszentrierte Perspektive: Die Darstellung wissenschaftlicher Evidenz Journalismuszentrierte Perspektive: Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Evidenz Für und Wider einer evidenzsensiblen Kommunikation sowie offene Forschungsfragen Die Zielgruppen Dozierende und Studierende der Bereiche Kommunikationswissenschaft, Wissenschaftskommunikation, Wissenschaftssoziologie und -psychologie Wissenschaftler aller Fachgebiete, die mediale Berichterstattung erfahren Der Autor Lars Guenther ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in Forschung und Lehre am Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) der Stellenbosch University in Südafrika
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
Generic frames represent typical layers of contextualization in stories and are broadly applicable to a range of different news topics (i.e., across topics). Examples of generic frames are the human interest or responsibility frames (e.g., Dirikx & Gelders, 2010; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Generic frames are used in different traditions of framing: (a) sociological tradition, such as frames in external news or images (e.g., Entman, 1993; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989), (b) psychological tradition, such as frames in people's minds (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), and (3) communication science tradition, such as frame production (communicators or journalists develop frames), frame setting or frame building (journalists adopt frames from communicators) (e.g., Matthes, 2014; see Borah, 2011 for a systematic examination of framing research). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Research has conducted experimental studies to investigate how generic frames (e.g., conflict, morality or economics) affect selective exposure to climate change news (e.g., Feldman & Hart, 2018) or what impact gain and loss frames have on the perception of the threat posed by the consequences of climate change (Bilandzic et al., 2017). Example studies: Bilandzic et al. (2017); Dirikx & Gelders (2010); Feldman & Hart (2018) Information on Dirikx & Gelders (2010) Authors: Astrid Dirikx & Dave Gelders Research question: This study examines the way Dutch and French newspapers frame climate change during the annual United Nations Conferences of the Parties (COPs) Object of analysis: The study analyzed a total of 257 news articles in Dutch and French quality newspapers: De Volkskrant (N = 52) and NRC Handelsblad (N = 61) for the Netherlands and Le Monde (N = 77) and Le Figaro (N = 67) for France. Time frame of analysis: The analysis covers the annual meetings of the United Nations Conferences of the Parties (COPs) from 2001 until 2007 Info about ...
AbstractIn (in)formal learning scenarios, individuals should develop epistemological beliefs (i.e., individual conceptions about the nature of knowledge and knowing) that are advantageous for understanding everyday science- and health-related information. To date, researchers measuring how to foster students' discipline-specific epistemological beliefs have often tested researcher-designed texts in short-term interventions. Applying this logic to audio-visual stimuli, television clips might also affect (e.g., change) the epistemological beliefs of students. To test this assumption, three different television stimuli on the subject of Alzheimer's disease with varying levels depicting the presented knowledge (as more advantageous, moderate, or less advantageous) were therefore selected by means of a content analysis, and their effects tested on a sample of 72 students using a pre-/post-test questionnaire. The results showed some partial support for the assumption that the epistemological beliefs of participants could become less advantageous when they are exposed to television clips depicting knowledge as moderate or less advantageous.
Science journalists are responsible for the media content about nanoscale science and technology, and its representation as scientifically certain or uncertain. This article applies the reasoned action approach (RAA) to identify factors having an impact on journalists' decisions on how to depict aspects of scientific evidence (= scientific (un)certainty). Results of interviews with science journalists ( n = 21) from diverse media channels showed that they adopt different coverage styles when representing (un)certainty. To find reasons for that, behavioral, normative, and control beliefs were investigated, and a model of science journalistic depiction behavior with respect to scientific evidence was constructed.
Presse, Rundfunk und Netz berichten vermehrt über Wissenschaft. Neuerdings gerät dabei die wissenschaftliche (Un-)Sicherheit der zugrundeliegenden Forschung in den Fokus öffentlicher Aufmerksamkeit. Schnell ist dann von Risiken die Rede. In ihrer Arbeit ringen Forscher darum, möglichst evidente, d. h. belegbare wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Damit verbunden ist häufig eine komplexe methodologische Debatte. Doch die Öffentlichkeit nimmt sie häufig als Kontroverse, ja sogar als Streit zwischen Wissenschaftlern wahr. Welche Rolle spielt dabei der Wissenschaftsjournalismus? Kann Öffentlichkeitsarbeit angesichts solcher Kontoversen für mehr Akzeptanz von Grundlagenforschung, aber auch möglichen Folgerisiken sorgen? Und verstehen die Bürger und Laien die Diskussionen und Kontroversen überhaupt? Der Band präsentiert ausgewählte Beiträge der 2. Jahrestagung der Ad-hoc-Gruppe Wissenschaftskommunikation der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Publizistik (DGPuK). Sie fand Anfang 2015 an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena unter Beteiligung zahlreicher Vertreter aus Wissenschaft, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit statt.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has provided an extraordinary test case for an analysis of the interrelations between policymakers and scientific experts faced with grave decisions and given the respective levels of trust they enjoy. The article provides a comparative analysis between three countries—Germany, the USA and South Africa (SA)—of the interrelation between the public's perceptions of the threat posed by the pandemic, the trust in governments and in scientific experts formally organized to advise governments, and the acceptance of governments' decisions to mitigate the pandemic. These scientific experts enjoyed a high degree of acceptance even when admitting uncertainty and the need for further research. Support for politicians also remained high in spite of the severity of the measures implemented and their increasingly evident departure from their experts' advice. However, trust in politicians deteriorated as the pandemic progressed, most dramatically in the USA, less so in SA and Germany, due to the politicization of the pandemic. The analysis is limited to events during 2020.
In: Von der Forschung zur evidenzbasierten Entscheidung. Die Darstellung und das öffentliche Verständnis der empirischen Bildungsforschung., p. 119-139
Ergebnisse der empirischen Bildungsforschung werden seit den PISA-Studien verstärkt massenmedial und damit öffentlich dargestellt und diskutiert. Um die (Un)Gesichertheit der dabei präsentierten wissenschaftlichen Evidenz zu verstehen, müssen Rezipienten über ausgereifte epistemologische Überzeugungen verfügen. Ausgereifte epistemologische Überzeugungen sind Voraussetzung für das Verständnis von präsentiertem, evidenzbasiertem Wissen in TV-Wissenschaftsmagazinen und können gleichzeitig durch die implizit dargestellten epistemologischen Dimensionen von wissenschaftlichem Wissen beeinflusst werden. Empirisch gezeigt wird mittels Inhaltsanalyse, wie die epistemologischen Dimensionen wissenschaftlichen Wissens in TV-Wissenschaftsbeiträgen dargestellt werden. Mit Hilfe einer Framing-Analyse wird der Zusammenhang zwischen implizit dargestellten epistemologischen Dimensionen und typischen Darstellungsmustern der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung aufgezeigt. Aus den Ergebnissen werden Empfehlungen für die öffentliche Kommunikation von evidenzbasiertem Wissen der empirischen Bildungsforschung abgeleitet. (DIPF/Orig.).;;;Since the results of the PISA studies have been introduced to the public, results of empirical educational research have increasingly been published and discussed by the mass media. To understand the (un)certainty of represented evidence of scientific research, laypeople need sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Such beliefs are a premise for the understanding of represented evidence-based knowledge in science television programs and can be simultaneously influenced by media's implicit representation of epistemological dimensions of scientific knowledge. An empirical content analysis shows how the epistemological dimensions of scientific knowledge are represented in science television programs. Applying framing analysis, the relationship between typical journalistic styles of science reporting and implicitly represented epistemological dimensions is shown. Based on the results we derive recommendations to improve the public communication of evidence-based knowledge of empirical educational research. (DIPF/Orig.).
In line with the urgency of problems related to climate change, studies on the framing of this issue have flourished in recent years. However, as in framing research overall, a lack of definitions complicates the synthesis of theoretical/empirical insights. This systematic review contrasts trends of framing in climate change communication to those observed in reviews of communication research overall and harnesses framing's power to bridge perspectives by comparing frames across different frame locations (i.e., frame production, frame content, audience frames, and framing effects), as part of the wider cultural framing repository. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches of content analysis, this review draws on 25 years of peer-reviewed literature on the framing of climate change ( n = 275). Among the findings, we observe that research has not made use of framing's bridging potential. Hence, the conceptual (mis)fit between frame locations will be discussed, and directions for future research will be given.
A follow-up study to Brüggemann et al. (2017), The appeasement effect of a United Nations climate summit on the German public Abstract Heat waves occurring around the world, outspoken warnings from scientists, international climate ac-tivism, and ensuing political debates on climate protection have ensured that climate change has finally caught the public's attention. This comparative analysis of public opinion during three UN climate sum-mits illustrates the awakening of public awareness of and an increased willingness to actively engage with climate change, probably as the cumulative effect of this combination of events. Comparing cli-mate change awareness, communicative engagement, knowledge, attitudes, and climate-friendly be-haviour during the 2015 (n = 1,477), 2018 (n = 1,044) and 2019 (n = 1,000) UN climate summits, we find major and consistently positive changes in various forms of active engagement with the issue. These results indicate that the appeasement effect observed in an earlier study during the 2015 Paris summit is over: the German public is now ready to take decisive steps to tackle the climate problem.
A follow-up study to Brüggemann et al. (2017), The appeasement effect of a United Nations climate summit on the German public Abstract Heat waves occurring around the world, outspoken warnings from scientists, international climate ac-tivism, and ensuing political debates on climate protection have ensured that climate change has finally caught the public's attention. This comparative analysis of public opinion during three UN climate sum-mits illustrates the awakening of public awareness of and an increased willingness to actively engage with climate change, probably as the cumulative effect of this combination of events. Comparing cli-mate change awareness, communicative engagement, knowledge, attitudes, and climate-friendly be-haviour during the 2015 (n = 1,477), 2018 (n = 1,044) and 2019 (n = 1,000) UN climate summits, we find major and consistently positive changes in various forms of active engagement with the issue. These results indicate that the appeasement effect observed in an earlier study during the 2015 Paris summit is over: the German public is now ready to take decisive steps to tackle the climate problem. Note for version 2: In the original version, one of the tables showed values with a wrong signedness.
