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.
AmendESeckoDM (2012) In the face of critique: A metasynthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health and science. Science Communication34(2): 241–282.
3.
AppelVFalgasJ (2019) The Conversation France: Une rencontre entre universitaires et journalistes [The Conversation France: A meeting between academics and journalists]. Recherches36(2). Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/communication/10498 (accessed 22 July 2019).
4.
AppiahBGastelBBurdineJNRussellLH (2015) Science reporting in Accra, Ghana: Sources, barriers and motivational factors. Public Understanding of Science24(1): 23–37.
5.
AshwellDJ (2016) The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science25(3): 379–393.
6.
BadenschierFWormerH (2012) Issue selection in science journalism: Toward a special theory of news values for science news? In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–86.
7.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(3): 14096–140101.
8.
BrossardDScheufeleDA (2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science339(6115): 40–41.
9.
BrumfielG (2009) Supplanting the old media?Nature458(7236): 274–278.
10.
BrunsA (2017) Das Modell The Conversation: Academic rigour, journalistic flair. In: WeingartPWormerHWenningerAHüttlRF (eds) Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter [Perspectives on science communication in the digital age]. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 78–81.
11.
BüchiM (2017) Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science26(8): 953–968.
12.
DaviesSRHaraN (2017) Public science in a wired world: How online media are shaping science communication. Science Communication39(5): 563–568.
13.
DST (2019) White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Science and Technology, Government Printers.
DunwoodyS (1999) Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In: FriedmanSDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 59–79.
16.
DunwoodySBrossardDDudoA (2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86(2): 299–314.
17.
EntradasMBauerM (2019) Bustling public communication by astronomers around the world driven by personal and contextual factors. Nature Astronomy3: 183–187.
FahyDNisbetMC (2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism12(7): 778–793.
20.
GoodellR (1977) The Visible Scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
21.
GregoryJMillerS (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
22.
GriecoE (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.
GuentherL (2019) Science journalism. In: OrnebringH (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.
GuentherLRuhrmannGZarembaMCWeigeltN (2021) The newsworthiness of the ‘
march for science’ in Germany: Comparing news factors in journalistic media and on Twitter. Journal of Science Communication20(2): 1–27.
25.
GuentherLWeingartPJoubertM (2019) Bridging a gap? Mapping the science coverage of South African newspapers. In: BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing across Europe, Asia and the America. London: Routledge, pp. 122–136.
26.
HargittaiEFüchslinTSchäferMS (2018) How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Social Media & Society4(3): 1–10.
27.
HarrisMMacinkoJJimenezGPricilaM (2017) Measuring the bias against low-income country research: An Implicit Association Test. Global Health13: 80.
28.
HeylAJoubertMGuentherL (2020) Hype and churnalism in science communication – Comparing university press releases and journalistic articles in South Africa. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research46(2): 126–145.
29.
JohnstonJFordeS (2017) ‘Churnalism’. Digital Journalism5(8): 943–946.
30.
KohringM (2005) Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf [Science journalism: Research review and theory draft]. Konstanz: UVK.
31.
KrieghbaumH (1968) Science and the Mass Media. New York, NY: New York University Press.
32.
McCombsMEShawD (1972) The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly69: 813–824.
33.
MarcinkowskiFKohringM (2014) The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication13(3): C04.
34.
MirandaGFGinestetJTimmermansJAragonINisatoD (1999) Scientific information strategies: ‘Disintermediation’ or a new way of intermediation? In: BakkerS (ed.) Libraries without Limits: Changing Needs – Changing Roles. Dordrecht: Springer, p. 124.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York, NY: Freeman.
38.
NorthMAHastieWWHoyerL (2020) Out of Africa: The underrepresentation of African authors in high-impact geoscience literature. Earth Science Reviews208: 103262.
39.
OsmanKCunninghamS (2019) Engagement and impact through ‘amplifier platforms’. Australian Universities Review61(2): 42–48.
40.
OsmanKCunninghamS (2020) ‘Amplifier’ platforms and impact: Australian scholars’ use of The Conversation. Australian Universities Review62(1): 41–50.
41.
PetersHPDunwoodySAllgaierJLoYBrossardD (2014) Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports15(7): 749–753.
42.
RensbergerB (2009) Science journalism: Too close for comfort. Nature459: 1055–1056.
43.
RödderS (2012) The ambivalence of visible scientists. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 155–178.
44.
RosenCGuentherLFroehlichK (2016) The question of newsworthiness: A cross-comparison among science journalists’ selection criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany. Science Communication38(3): 328–355.
45.
ShanLReganÁDe BrúnABarnettJvan der SandenMCAWallP, et al. (2014) Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science23(8): 911–928.
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.
VeltriGAAtanasovaD (2017) Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science26(6): 721–737.
52.
VOSviewer (2021) Visualizing scientific landscapes. Available at: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed 23 March 2021).
53.
WeigoldMF (2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23(2): 164–193.
54.
WeingartPJoubertM (2019) The conflation of motives of science communication – Causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication18(3): Y01.
55.
WormerH (2008) Science journalism. In: DonsbachW (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication (Vol. X). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4512–4514.
56.
YoungMLHermidaA (2020) The Conversation Canada: Not-for-profit journalism organization in a time of commercial media decline. In: DuboisEMartin-BariteauF (eds) Citizenship in a Connected Canada: A Research and Policy Agenda. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 119–134.
57.
ZardoPBarnettAGSuzorNCahillT (2020) Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016. PLoS ONE13(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.
