Tiedeviestintä ja asiantuntijuus - tutkijoiden muuttuva suhde julkisuuteen

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

Sammanfattning

Recent studies show that scientists take an increasingly positive view on communicating research and expertise in the public media. These studies have mainly focused on the science-media interface, and there is a need now to explore more broadly how scientists view different aspects and arenas of science communication and evaluate public expertise.
This paper results from a case study among Finnish nutrition, food and health researchers. The analysis is based on an open-ended survey among project leaders.The main focus is on analysing different notions of science communication and public expertise. The first view of science communication sees it mainly in terms of communication between experts. The second view could be labelled as outsourced science communication, as scientists choose to leave public communication to others, such as industrial project partners. The third viewpoint defines science communication in terms of policy-orientated communication aimed at health policy actors in the field. The fourth notion of science communication encompasses a wide variety of communicative actions,
but focuses mainly on communicating expertise in the news media.
These different views of science communication and outreach activities reflect different interpretations of scientists’ roles as public experts. Those in favour of
a narrow definition of public expertise tend to prefer expert arenas. If they engage in public media arenas, they prefer to talk only about their recent research results (popularization). Other researchers, subscribing to a broader definition of expertise, feel at home in various arenas and engage in broader debates related to science.
The paper discusses the different views of communication in relation to the continuity model of science communication as well as the proposed gap
between different arenas of science communication.
Originalspråkfinska
Tidskrift(until 1953): Alkoholiliikkeen Aikakauskirja
Volym80
Utgåva3
Sidor (från-till)221-232
Antal sidor12
ISSN1455-6901
StatusPublicerad - 2015
MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad

Vetenskapsgrenar

  • 518 Medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap

Citera det här

@article{7bebc729267e48f1a74f7abd3f58784e,
title = "Tiedeviestint{\"a} ja asiantuntijuus - tutkijoiden muuttuva suhde julkisuuteen",
abstract = "Recent studies show that scientists take an increasingly positive view on communicating research and expertise in the public media. These studies have mainly focused on the science-media interface, and there is a need now to explore more broadly how scientists view different aspects and arenas of science communication and evaluate public expertise.This paper results from a case study among Finnish nutrition, food and health researchers. The analysis is based on an open-ended survey among project leaders.The main focus is on analysing different notions of science communication and public expertise. The first view of science communication sees it mainly in terms of communication between experts. The second view could be labelled as outsourced science communication, as scientists choose to leave public communication to others, such as industrial project partners. The third viewpoint defines science communication in terms of policy-orientated communication aimed at health policy actors in the field. The fourth notion of science communication encompasses a wide variety of communicative actions,but focuses mainly on communicating expertise in the news media.These different views of science communication and outreach activities reflect different interpretations of scientists’ roles as public experts. Those in favour ofa narrow definition of public expertise tend to prefer expert arenas. If they engage in public media arenas, they prefer to talk only about their recent research results (popularization). Other researchers, subscribing to a broader definition of expertise, feel at home in various arenas and engage in broader debates related to science.The paper discusses the different views of communication in relation to the continuity model of science communication as well as the proposed gapbetween different arenas of science communication.",
keywords = "518 Media- ja viestint{\"a}tieteet",
author = "V{\"a}liverronen, {Esa Tapani}",
year = "2015",
language = "suomi",
volume = "80",
pages = "221--232",
journal = "Yhteiskuntapolitiikka",
issn = "1455-6901",
publisher = "Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Nuorisotutkimusverkosto",
number = "3",

}

Tiedeviestintä ja asiantuntijuus - tutkijoiden muuttuva suhde julkisuuteen. / Väliverronen, Esa Tapani.

I: (until 1953): Alkoholiliikkeen Aikakauskirja, Vol. 80, Nr. 3, 2015, s. 221-232.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tiedeviestintä ja asiantuntijuus - tutkijoiden muuttuva suhde julkisuuteen

AU - Väliverronen, Esa Tapani

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Recent studies show that scientists take an increasingly positive view on communicating research and expertise in the public media. These studies have mainly focused on the science-media interface, and there is a need now to explore more broadly how scientists view different aspects and arenas of science communication and evaluate public expertise.This paper results from a case study among Finnish nutrition, food and health researchers. The analysis is based on an open-ended survey among project leaders.The main focus is on analysing different notions of science communication and public expertise. The first view of science communication sees it mainly in terms of communication between experts. The second view could be labelled as outsourced science communication, as scientists choose to leave public communication to others, such as industrial project partners. The third viewpoint defines science communication in terms of policy-orientated communication aimed at health policy actors in the field. The fourth notion of science communication encompasses a wide variety of communicative actions,but focuses mainly on communicating expertise in the news media.These different views of science communication and outreach activities reflect different interpretations of scientists’ roles as public experts. Those in favour ofa narrow definition of public expertise tend to prefer expert arenas. If they engage in public media arenas, they prefer to talk only about their recent research results (popularization). Other researchers, subscribing to a broader definition of expertise, feel at home in various arenas and engage in broader debates related to science.The paper discusses the different views of communication in relation to the continuity model of science communication as well as the proposed gapbetween different arenas of science communication.

AB - Recent studies show that scientists take an increasingly positive view on communicating research and expertise in the public media. These studies have mainly focused on the science-media interface, and there is a need now to explore more broadly how scientists view different aspects and arenas of science communication and evaluate public expertise.This paper results from a case study among Finnish nutrition, food and health researchers. The analysis is based on an open-ended survey among project leaders.The main focus is on analysing different notions of science communication and public expertise. The first view of science communication sees it mainly in terms of communication between experts. The second view could be labelled as outsourced science communication, as scientists choose to leave public communication to others, such as industrial project partners. The third viewpoint defines science communication in terms of policy-orientated communication aimed at health policy actors in the field. The fourth notion of science communication encompasses a wide variety of communicative actions,but focuses mainly on communicating expertise in the news media.These different views of science communication and outreach activities reflect different interpretations of scientists’ roles as public experts. Those in favour ofa narrow definition of public expertise tend to prefer expert arenas. If they engage in public media arenas, they prefer to talk only about their recent research results (popularization). Other researchers, subscribing to a broader definition of expertise, feel at home in various arenas and engage in broader debates related to science.The paper discusses the different views of communication in relation to the continuity model of science communication as well as the proposed gapbetween different arenas of science communication.

KW - 518 Media- ja viestintätieteet

M3 - Artikkeli

VL - 80

SP - 221

EP - 232

JO - Yhteiskuntapolitiikka

JF - Yhteiskuntapolitiikka

SN - 1455-6901

IS - 3

ER -