Tensions between scientific organizations’ conceptions and demands regarding public communication on the one hand and the public communication of individual scientists on the other hand exist and may even become more prevalent. Such tensions revolve around issues of institutional reputation management and academic freedom, centralized messaging and individual autonomy, or scientific neutrality and political engagement, and can be catalyzed by changes in media landscapes and sociocultural contexts surrounding scientific institutions. This essay identifies sources and key dimensions of these tensions. It also explores how institutions manage such tensions and how scientists respond, ranging from loyalty to institutional policies to open dissent, self-censorship, and exit. To mitigate conflicts, it advocates for inclusive and transparent communication policies that balance institutional goals with scientific autonomy, fostering trust and ensuring that both organizations and researchers contribute effectively to public discourse.
AltrichterH (2015) Governance in education: Conceptualisation, methodology, and research strategies for analysing contemporary transformations of teacher education. In: KuhleeDvan BuerJWinchC (eds) Governance in Initial Teacher Education: Perspectives on England and Germany. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 9–30.
2.
AmmannO (2021) Zur unscharfen Grenze zwischen Wissenschaftsfreiheit und Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit. [On the opaque boundary between academic freedom and freedom of opinion]. Recht und Zugang3: 194–229.
3.
AutzenCWeitkampE (2019) Science communication and public relations: beyond borders. In: LeßmöllmannADascalMGloningT (eds) Handbook of Science Communication. New York: de Gruyter, pp. 465–484.
4.
BalmerB (2004) How does an accident become an experiment? Secret science and the exposure of the public to biological warfare agents. Science as Culture13(2): 197–228.
5.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2017) Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education7(3): 285–300.
6.
BelangerCHBaliSLongdenB (2014) How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management20(1): 14–29.
7.
BesleyJC (2014) What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy42(2): 201–214.
8.
BornmannL (2013) What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64(2): 217–233.
9.
BrandmayrF (2020) When Boundary Organisations Fail: Identifying Scientists and Civil Servants in L’Aquila Earthquake Trial. Science as Culture30(2): 237–260.
10.
BrossardDBelluckPGouldFWirzCD (2019) Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(16): 7692–7697.
11.
BrüggemannMLörcherIWalterS (2020) Post-normal science communication: Exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication19(3): A02.
12.
BucchiM (2015) Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology15(3): 233–252.
13.
BucchiMFattoriniESaracinoB (2022) Public perception of COVID-19 vaccination in Italy: The role of trust and experts’ communication. International Journal of Public Health67: 1604222.
14.
BucchiMTrenchB (eds) (2021) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
15.
DablanderFSachisthalMSColognaVStrahmNBosshardAGrüningNM, et al (2024) Climate change engagement of scientists. Nature Climate Change14(10): 1033–1039.
16.
De JongSPSmitJVan DroogeL (2015) Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox. Science and Public Policy43(1): 102–114.
17.
DehkharghaniLLPaulJMaharatiYMenziesJ (2023) Employee silence in an organizational context: A review and research agenda. European Management Journal41(6): 1072–1085.
18.
DunwoodyS (2021) Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 14–32.
19.
ElkenMStensakerBDedzeI (2018) The painters behind the profile: The rise and functioning of communication departments in universities. Higher Education76(6): 1109–1122.
20.
EntradasM (2022) Public communication at research universities: Moving towards (de) centralised communication of science?. Public Understanding of Science31(5): 634–647.
21.
EntradasMBauerMW (2019) Bustling public communication by astronomers around the world driven by personal and contextual factors. Nature Astronomy3(2): 183–187.
22.
FahyDLewensteinB (2021) Scientists in popular culture: The making of celebrities. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 33–52). London: Routledge.
23.
FerrisSPWaldronK (2021) Higher Education Leadership: Pathways and Insights. Bingley: Emerald.
24.
FürstSSchäferMVoglerDSörensenI (2023) Beyond the news media logic? Analyzing the social media orientation of university leadership. Swiss Journal of Sociology49(3): 567–588.
25.
FürstSVolkSCSchäferMSVoglerDSörensenI (2022) Assessing changes in the public communication of higher education institutions: A survey of leaders of Swiss universities and colleges. Studies in Communication Sciences22(3): 515–534.
26.
GanI (2020) The allegory of the university: Employee voice, employee silence, and organizational power. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication21(1): 59–65.
27.
GhaniBMalikMAR (2022) Social media and employee voice: A comprehensive literature review. Behaviour & Information Technology42(14): 2407–2427.
28.
GustersonH (2003) The death of the authors of death: prestige and creativity among nuclear weapons scientists. In: BiagioliMGalison(eds) Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 281–307.
29.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. New York: Harvard University Press.
30.
KesslerSHSchäferMSJohannDRauhutH (2022) Mapping mental models of science communication: How academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland understand and practice science communication. Public Understanding of Science31(6): 711–731.
31.
KönigM (2020) Scholarly communication in social media. In: LeßmöllmannADascalMGloningT (eds) Science Communication. Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 639–656.
32.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
33.
MertonRK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159(3810): 56–63.
34.
NeubergerCBartschAFröhlichRReinemannCSchindlerJ (2023) The digital transformation of knowledge order: A model for the analysis of the epistemic crisis. Annals of the International Communication Association47(2): 180–201.
35.
PerkmannMTartariVMcKelveyMAutioEBroströmAD’EsteP, et al (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy42(2): 423–442.
36.
PetersHP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(3): 14102–14109.
37.
PincockS (2009) Climate scientists fired for talking to the media. Nature.
RauchfleischASchäferMSSiegenD (2021) Beyond the ivory tower: Measuring and explaining academic engagement with journalists, politicians and industry representatives among Swiss professors. PLoS ONE16(5): e0251051.
40.
ReinhardSFendN (2021) Neue Social Media Richtlinien polarisieren auf Twitter [New social media guidelines polarize Twitter]. Der Bund, 2April.
SchäferMS (2017) How changing media structures are affecting science news coverage. In: Hall JamiesonKKahanDMScheufeleDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford Library of Psychology, pp. 50–59.
43.
SchäferMSFähnrichB (2020) Communicating science in organizational contexts: toward an “organizational turn” in science communication research. Journal of Communication Management24(3): 137–154.
44.
SchmidPBetschC (2019) Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour3: 931–939.
45.
SchwetjeTHauserCBöschenSLeßmöllmannA (2020) Communicating science in higher education and research institutions: An organization communication perspective on science communication. Journal of Communication Management24(3): 189–205.
VäliverronenE (2021) Mediatisation of science and the rise of promotional culture. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 129–146.
49.
VäliverronenESaikkonenS (2021) Freedom of expression challenged: Scientists’ perspectives on hidden forms of suppression and self-censorship. Science, Technology, & Human Values46(6): 1172–1200.
50.
VäliverronenESihvonenTLaaksonenS-MKoskelaM (2022) Branding the “wow-academy”: The risks of promotional culture and quasi-corporate communication in higher education. Studies in Communication Sciences22(3): 493–513.
51.
Van NoordenR (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature News512(7513): 126.
52.
VaughanT (2015) Moving beyond social and epistemological “bundan” in Fukushima. Designing Media Ecology3: 52–58.
53.
VoglerD (2020) Analyzing reputation of Swiss universities on Twitter: The role of stakeholders, content and sources. Corporate Communications: An International Journal25(3): 429–445.
54.
VolkSCVoglerDFürstSSchäferMS (2024) The plurivocal university: Typologizing the diverse voices of a research university on social media. Public Understanding of Science34: 271–290.
55.
WeingartP (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The hour of truth? On the relation of science to politics, economy and media in the knowledge society]. Weilerswist: Velbrück.
56.
WeingartP (2022) Trust or attention? Medialization of science revisited. Public Understanding of Science31(3): 288–296.
57.
YeoSKBrossardD (2017) 28 The (Changing) Nature of Scientist–Media Interactions: A Cross-National Analysis. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleD (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 261–272.
