Scholars of science communication have identified population segments that differ in their perceptions of and attitudes toward science as well as in their patterns of science-related information and media use. So far, however, most of these studies employed quantitative, standardized methods and their descriptions could not go into qualitative detail. This study fills this gap: It delivers an in-depth description of members of four audience segments that were identified in a prior, representative survey in Switzerland. Forty-one of these survey respondents, representing different segments, were asked to note their encounters with science in smartphone-based diaries, and diary entries were discussed in qualitative follow-up interviews. Results show that the segments differ in their criteria for identifying science, expectations toward science, and their reasons to use science communication.
AjzenI (1989) Attitude structure and behavior. In: BrecklerSJGreenwaldAG (eds) Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 241–274.
2.
BauerMW (2016) The Culture of Science Indicators. London: LSE Press.
3.
BBVA foundation (2011) International Study on Scientific Culture: Understanding of Science. Bilbao: BBVA.
4.
BergMDüvelC (2012) Qualitative media diaries: An instrument for doing research from a mobile media ethnographic perspective. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture3(1): 71–89.
5.
BesleyJC (2013) The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society33: 12–20.
6.
BolgerNDavisARafaeliE (2003) Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology54: 579–616.
7.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110: 14096–14101.
8.
BrossardDScheufeleDA (2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science339(6115): 40–41.
9.
CarterSMankoffJ (2005) When participants do the capturing. In: van der VeerG (ed.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, p. 899.
10.
DetenberBRosenthalSLiaoYHoSS (2016) Climate and sustainability| audience segmentation for campaign design: Addressing climate change in Singapore. International Journal of Communication10: 23.
EvelandWPJrHutchensMJShenF (2009) Exposure, attention, or “use” of news? Assessing aspects of the reliability and validity of a central concept in political communication research. Communication Methods and Measures3(4): 223–244.
13.
EvelandWP (2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research28(5): 571–601.
14.
FischhoffBScheufeleDA (2013) The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Supp. 3): 14031–14032.
15.
FüchslinT (2019) Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: Can we take them to the next level?Public Understanding of Science28: 854–864.
16.
FüchslinTSchäferMSMetagJ (2018) A short survey instrument to segment populations according to their attitudes toward science: Scale development, optimization and assessment. Environmental Communication-a Journal of Nature and Culture12(8): 1095–1108.
17.
GeertzC (2008) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In: GeertzC (ed.) The Cultural Geography Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 41–51.
18.
GuentherLWeingartP (2018) Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics: A culture-sensitive approach. Public Understanding of Science27(1): 47–58.
19.
GuentherLWeingartPMeyerC (2018) “Science is everywhere, but no one knows it”: Assessing the cultural distance to science of rural South African publics. Environmental Communication12(8): 1046–1061.
20.
HefnerD (2013) “Wie kriegen wir sie ins Boot?” Eine Typologie zur Entwicklung von Kommunikationsstrategien zur Förderung umweltschützenden Verhaltens [How do we get them on board?” - A typology on the development of communication strategies for promoting a behavior of environmental protection]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft61(3): 387–405.
21.
HineDWReserJPMorrisonMPhillipsWJNunnPCookseyR (2014) Audience segmentation and climate change communication: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change5(4): 441–459.
22.
IidaMShroutPELaurenceauJPBolgerN (2012) Using diary methods in psychological research. In: CooperHM (ed.) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 277–305.
23.
KahlorLRosenthalS (2009) If we seek, do we learn?Science Communication30(3): 380–414.
24.
KawamotoSNakayamaMSaijoM (2013a) A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 674–690.
25.
KawamotoSNakayamaMSaijoM (2013b) Using a scientific literacy cluster to determine participant attitudes in scientific events in Japan, and potential applications to improving science communication. Journal of Science Communication12(1): 1–12.
26.
KochCHerrmannISanerM (2014) Rezeptionsmessung Via Elektronischem Tagebuch: Die Notizsoftware Evemote Im Empirischen Einsatz [Measurement of media use with an electronic diary: The Evemote software in empirical use]. In: 16th Conference of the Section “Methods of Journalism and Communication Studies”: Methodological Challenges and Innovations in Communication and Media Research, Munich, Germany, 9–11 October 2014.
27.
KuhlmannCWollingJ (2004) Fernsehen als Nebenbeimedium. Befragungsdaten und Tagebuchdaten im Vergleich [Watching Television as Parallel Activity. Interview and Diary Data in Comparison]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft52: 386–411.
28.
KuntscheELabhartF (2013) ICAT: Development of an internet-based data collection method for ecological momentary assessment using personal cell phones. European Journal of Psychological Assessment Official Organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment29(2): 140–148.
MayringP (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen Und Techniken [Qualitative Content Analysis: Basic and Techniques]. Weinheim: Beltz.
32.
MejlgaardNStaresS (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 545–561.
33.
MetagJ (2017) Rezeption und Wirkung öffentlicher Wissenschaftskommunikation. In: BonfadelliHFähnrichBLüthjeC, et al. (eds) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. New York: Springer, pp. 251–274.
34.
MetagJSchäferMS (2018) Audience segments in environmental and science communication: Recent findings and future perspectives. Environmental Communication-a Journal of Nature and Culture12(8): 995–1004.
35.
MetagJFüchslinTSchäferMS (2017) Global warming’s five Germanys: A typology of Germans’ views on climate change and patterns of media use and information. Public Understanding of Science26(4): 434–451.
36.
MetagJMaierMFüchslinTBrommeLSchäferMS (2018) Between active seekers and non-users: Segments of science-related media usage in Switzerland and Germany. Environmental Communication-a Journal of Nature and Culture12(8): 1077–1094.
37.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
38.
MillerS (2003) Science communication’s burnt bridges. Public Understanding of Science12(1): 105–108.
NaabTK (2013) Gewohnheiten Und Rituale Der Fernsehnutzung: Theoretische Konzeption Und Methodische Perspektiven [Television viewing habits and rituals. Theoretical concept and measurement perspectives]. Zugl: Hannover, Hochsch. für Musik, Theater und Medien, Dissertation, 2012. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
41.
NisbetMMarkowitzEM (2014) Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PLoS ONE9(2): e88473.
42.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model für public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
43.
NoarSMBenacCNHarrisMS (2007) Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin133(4): 673.
OST (2005) Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research. London: Department of Trade & Industry, Office of Science and Technology.
46.
OST and WellcomeTrust (2001) Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science10: 315–330.
47.
PaulusTLesterJNDempsterP (2013) Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
48.
PetersHP (2003) “Nützlich, aber ethisch fragwürdig”—Gedanken von Zuschauern während eines Fernsehbeitrags über das Humangenom-Projekt [“Useful, but ethically questionable” thoughts of viewers during a Television contribution about the Human Genome Project]. Genomxpress. Informationen Aus Der Deutschen Genomforschung2003(1): 32–34.
49.
PutscheLHormelLMihelichJ (2017) “You end up feeling like the rest of the world is kind of picking on you”: Perceptions of regulatory science’s threats to economic livelihoods and Idahoans’ collective identity. Science Communication39(6): 687–712.
50.
SchäferMS (2017a) How changing media structures are affecting science news coverage. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleDA, et al. (eds) Oxford Library of Psychology. the Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–57.
51.
SchäferMS (2017b) Wissenschaftskommunikation online [Science Communication Online]. In: BonfadelliHFähnrichBLüthjeC, et al. (eds) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. [Research Field Science Communication] New York: Springer, pp. 275–293.
52.
SchäferMSFüchslinTMetagJKristiansenSRauchfleischA (2018) The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 836–856.
53.
SchlützDSchererH (2001) Der Einsatz der, Experience Sampling Method’ in der Medienwissenschaft [The Application of the Experience Sampling Method in Media Studies]. Zeitschrift Für Medienpsychologie13(3): 146–149.
