Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries

Abstract

This study is a cross-national empirical analysis of popular science publishing among university staff in a 13-country sample. The countries included in the study are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, the UK and the USA. The study seeks to quantify the extent of popular science publishing and its relationship with scientific publishing. Popular science publishing was measured as the number of articles written by scientists in newspapers and magazines over the three-year period 2005-07. Our findings suggest that popular science publishing is undertaken by a minority of academic staff and to a far lesser extent than scientific publishing. Despite the arguably fewer rewards associated with publishing for the non-specialist public, our data suggests that academic staff with popular publications have higher levels of scientific publishing and academic rank. The positive relationship between scientific and popular publishing is consistent across all countries and academic fields. The extent of popular science publishing varies with field and country.

Keywords

dissemination of research popular science popular science publishing popularisation of research science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Checkoway, B. ( 2001) "Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University ," The Journal of Higher Education 72: 126-47.

Creamer, E. ( 1998) Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 26(2), Washington DC.

Dunwoody, S. ( 1986) "The Scientist as a Source," in S.M. Friedman , S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, pp. 3-16. New York: Free Press.

Felt, U. ( 2003) "Sciences, Science Studies and their Publics: Speculating on Future Relations," in B. Joerges and H. Nowotny (eds) Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back Ahead, pp. 11-31. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. ( 1997) "Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media," Science Communication 18 (3): 265-82.

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. ( 1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility . New York: Plenum.

Hilgartner, S. ( 1990) "The Dominant View of Popularisation: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses," Social Studies of Science 20: 519-39.

Jaccard, J. , Becker, M.A. and Wood, G. ( 1984). "Pairwise Multiple Comparison PRocedures: A Review," Psychological Bulletin 96: 589-96.

Jensen, P. , Rouquier, J.B. , Kreimer, P. and Croissant, Y. ( 2008) "Scientists who Engage with Society Perform Better Academically ," Science and Public Policy 35(7): 527-41.

10.

Kalleberg, R. ( 2000) "Universities: Complex Bundle Institutions and the Projects of Enlightenment," Comparative Social Research 19: 219-55.

11.

Kyvik, S. ( 1994) "Popular Science Publishing," Scientometrics 31(2): 143-53.

12.

Kyvik, S. ( 2005) "Popular Science Publishing and Contributions to Public Discourse among University Faculty," Science Communication 26(3): 288-311.

13.

Kyvik, S. and Teigen, M. ( 1996) "Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in Scientific Productivity," Science, Technology and Human Values 21(1): 54-7.

14.

Lewenstein, B.V. ( 1995) "Science and the Media," in S. Jasanoff , G.E. Markle , J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 343-60. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Logan, R.A. ( 2001) "Science Mass Communication: Its Conceptual History," Science Communication 23: 135-63.

16.

Miller, J.D. ( 1998) "The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203-23.

17.

Oecd (2006) PISA 2006 Results . Paris: OECD.

18.

Peters, H.P. , Brossard, D. , de Cheveigné, S. , Dunwoody, S. , Kallfass, M. and Miller, S. ( 2008a) "Interactions with the Mass Media," Science 321: 204-5.

19.

Peters, H.P. , Brossard, D. , de Cheveigné, S. , Dunwoody, S. , Kallfass, M. and Miller, S. ( 2008b) "Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider," Science Communication 30: 266-76.

20.

Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T.L. ( 2007) "What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities?" Science Communication 29(2): 242-63.

21.

Royal Society (2006a) Science and the Public Interest: Communicating the Results of new Scientific Research to the Public. London: The Royal Society.

22.

Royal Society (2006b) Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: The Royal Society.

23.

Scott, P. ( 2005) "The Academic Profession in a Knowledge Society," in U. Teichler (ed.) The Formative Years of Scholars , pp. 19-30. London: Portland Press.

24.

Shortland, M. and Gregory, J. ( 1991) Communicating Science: A Handbook. Essex: Longman.

25.

University of Kassel (2008) Changing Academic Profession. An International Research Project , Available: http://www.uni-kassel.de/wz1/cap/international.ghk

26.

Unesco (1978) Recommendation Concerning the International Standardization of Statistics on Science and Technology. Paris: UNESCO.

27.

Weigold, M.F. ( 2001) "Communicating Science: A Review of the Literature," Science Communication 23: 164-93.

28.

Weingart, P. ( 1998) "Science and the media," Research Policy 27: 869-79.

29.

Wellcome Trust (2000) The Role of Scientists in Public Debate: Full Report. London: The Wellcome Trust.

30.

Whitley, R. ( 1985) "Knowledge Producers and Knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a Relation between Scientific Fields and their Publics," in T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds) Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation , pp. 3-28. Dordrecht: Reidel.

31.

Winter, E. ( 2004) "Public Communication of Science and Technology: German and European Perspectives," Science Communication 25(3): 288-93.