Novel interfaces in science communication: Comparing journalistic and social media uptake of articles published by The Conversation Africa

Abstract

Science amplifier platforms such as The Conversation have gained popularity in a changing media ecosystem in which the traditional roles of journalists are eroded, and scientists are urged to engage with society. The Conversation constitutes a blend of scientific communication, public science communication and science journalism, and a convergence of the professional worlds of science and journalism. In this study, we investigated the nature and impact of the Africa-focussed edition of this platform, The Conversation Africa. We analysed articles published over a 5-year period since its launch in 2015 (N = 5392). Contents from South Africa dominate the platform, but contributions from other African countries are increasing. Regarding the role of The Conversation Africa as an inter-media agenda setter, mainstream media more often republished stories related to politics or economics, while stories about social issues such as education, conservation and art were more often shared on social media.

Keywords

science and media science communication science journalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agaba

(2019) New AAS funding model calls for greater public engagement. University World News, 19 June. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190625170710329 (accessed 22 March 2021).

Amend

Secko

(2012) In the face of critique: A metasynthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health and science. Science Communication 34(2): 241–282.

Appel

Falgas

(2019) The Conversation France: Une rencontre entre universitaires et journalistes [The Conversation France: A meeting between academics and journalists]. Recherches 36(2). Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/communication/10498 (accessed 22 July 2019).

Appiah

Gastel

Burdine

Russell

(2015) Science reporting in Accra, Ghana: Sources, barriers and motivational factors. Public Understanding of Science 24(1): 23–37.

Ashwell

(2016) The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science 25(3): 379–393.

Badenschier

Wormer

(2012) Issue selection in science journalism: Toward a special theory of news values for science news? In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–86.

Brossard

(2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(3): 14096–140101.

Brossard

Scheufele

(2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(6115): 40–41.

Brumfiel

(2009) Supplanting the old media? Nature 458(7236): 274–278.

10.

Bruns

(2017) Das Modell The Conversation: Academic rigour, journalistic flair. In: Weingart

Wormer

Wenninger

Hüttl

(eds) Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter [Perspectives on science communication in the digital age]. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 78–81.

11.

Büchi

(2017) Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science 26(8): 953–968.

12.

Davies

Hara

(2017) Public science in a wired world: How online media are shaping science communication. Science Communication 39(5): 563–568.

13.

DST (2019) White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Science and Technology, Government Printers.

14.

Dudek

Costas

(2020) Exploring the COVID-19 discourse in ‘The Conversation’. Leiden Metrics, 2 June. Available at: https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/exploring-the-covid-19-discourse-in-the-conversation (accessed 16 October 2020).

15.

Dunwoody

(1999) Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In: Friedman

Dunwoody

Rogers

(eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 59–79.

16.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(2): 299–314.

17.

Entradas

Bauer

(2019) Bustling public communication by astronomers around the world driven by personal and contextual factors. Nature Astronomy 3: 183–187.

18.

European Commission (2014) Responsible research and innovation. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/KI0214595ENC.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).

19.

Fahy

Nisbet

(2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism 12(7): 778–793.

20.

Goodell

(1977) The Visible Scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

21.

Gregory

Miller

(1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

22.

Grieco

(2020) U.S. newspapers have shed half of their newsroom employees since 2008. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/?p=304666 (accessed 16 October 2020).

23.

Guenther

(2019) Science journalism. In: Ornebring

(ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.901 (accessed 26 March 2019).

24.

Guenther

Ruhrmann

Zaremba

Weigelt

(2021) The newsworthiness of the ‘ march for science’ in Germany: Comparing news factors in journalistic media and on Twitter. Journal of Science Communication 20(2): 1–27.

25.

Guenther

Weingart

Joubert

(2019) Bridging a gap? Mapping the science coverage of South African newspapers. In: Bauer

Pansegrau

Shukla

(eds) The Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing across Europe, Asia and the America. London: Routledge, pp. 122–136.

26.

Hargittai

Füchslin

Schäfer

(2018) How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Social Media & Society 4(3): 1–10.

27.

Harris

Macinko

Jimenez

Pricila

(2017) Measuring the bias against low-income country research: An Implicit Association Test. Global Health 13: 80.

28.

Heyl

Joubert

Guenther

(2020) Hype and churnalism in science communication – Comparing university press releases and journalistic articles in South Africa. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 46(2): 126–145.

29.

Johnston

Forde

(2017) ‘Churnalism’. Digital Journalism 5(8): 943–946.

30.

Kohring

(2005) Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf [Science journalism: Research review and theory draft]. Konstanz: UVK.

31.

Krieghbaum

(1968) Science and the Mass Media. New York, NY: New York University Press.

32.

McCombs

Shaw

(1972) The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 69: 813–824.

33.

Marcinkowski

Kohring

(2014) The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication 13(3): C04.

34.

Miranda

Ginestet

Timmermans

Aragon

Nisato

(1999) Scientific information strategies: ‘Disintermediation’ or a new way of intermediation? In: Bakker

(ed.) Libraries without Limits: Changing Needs – Changing Roles. Dordrecht: Springer, p. 124.

35.

Moore

Singletary

(1985) Scientific sources’ perceptions of network news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly 62: 816–823.

36.

National Alliance for Broader Impacts (NABI) (2018) The current state of broader impacts: Advancing science and benefiting society. Available at: https://extension2.missouri.edu/media/wysiwyg/Extensiondata/Pro/ARIS/Docs/nabi-current-state-of-bi-011118.pdf (accessed 08 March 2021).

37.

Nelkin

(1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York, NY: Freeman.

38.

North

Hastie

Hoyer

(2020) Out of Africa: The underrepresentation of African authors in high-impact geoscience literature. Earth Science Reviews 208: 103262.

39.

Osman

Cunningham

(2019) Engagement and impact through ‘amplifier platforms’. Australian Universities Review 61(2): 42–48.

40.

Osman

Cunningham

(2020) ‘Amplifier’ platforms and impact: Australian scholars’ use of The Conversation. Australian Universities Review 62(1): 41–50.

41.

Peters

Dunwoody

Allgaier

Brossard

(2014) Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports 15(7): 749–753.

42.

Rensberger

(2009) Science journalism: Too close for comfort. Nature 459: 1055–1056.

43.

Rödder

(2012) The ambivalence of visible scientists. In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 155–178.

44.

Rosen

Guenther

Froehlich

(2016) The question of newsworthiness: A cross-comparison among science journalists’ selection criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany. Science Communication 38(3): 328–355.

45.

Shan

Regan

De Brún

Barnett

van der Sanden

MCA

Wall

, et al. (2014) Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science 23(8): 911–928.

46.

The Conversation Africa (2020) Five years in review. Available at: https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1179/AF_five_year_report_-_The_Conversation_FA_2.pdf?1598011701 (accessed 16 October 2020).

47.

TNS-BMRB (2015) Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers: A Study on Behalf of a Consortium of UK Public Research Funders. London: Policy Studies Institute.

48.

UK Research and Innovation (2019) Vision for public engagement. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/files/per/ukri-vision-for-public-engagement-pdf/ (accessed 15 October 2020).

49.

UNESCO (2015) UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/unescosciencereport (accessed 15 October 2020).

50.

Van Eck

Waltman

(2020) VOSviewer manual. Available at: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.15.pdf (accessed 15 March 2021).

51.

Veltri

Atanasova

(2017) Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science 26(6): 721–737.

52.

VOSviewer (2021) Visualizing scientific landscapes. Available at: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed 23 March 2021).

53.

Weigold

(2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23(2): 164–193.

54.

Weingart

Joubert

(2019) The conflation of motives of science communication – Causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication 18(3): Y01.

55.

Wormer

(2008) Science journalism. In: Donsbach

(ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication (Vol. X). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4512–4514.

56.

Young

Hermida

(2020) The Conversation Canada: Not-for-profit journalism organization in a time of commercial media decline. In: Dubois

Martin-Bariteau

(eds) Citizenship in a Connected Canada: A Research and Policy Agenda. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 119–134.

57.

Zardo

Barnett

Suzor

Cahill

(2020) Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192290.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB