Social and political interest in science regularly prompts scientists to assume the role of public spokesperson. The article investigates this role of representing science as both “speaking on behalf of” science and symbolically “standing for” science and its organizations. With inspiration from the field of organizational communication, it is argued that science communication should be considered as an activity intimately linked with perceptions of identity and organizational culture. When scientists communicate publicly, they do not just disseminate knowledge, they also represent a particular sense making about what science, scientists, and scientific organizations are. Based on a qualitative analysis of 20 leading Danish scientists’ views on their own role in public communication, three different modes of representation are identified: Expert, Research Manager, and Guardian of Science. Each of these modes of representation implies particular notions of quality, audience, motivation, and learning in science communication.
AlbertS.WhettenD. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263-295.
2.
AndersonR. M.PerucciR.SchendelD.TrachtmanL. (1980). Divided loyalties: Whistle-blowing at BART. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
3.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11.
4.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69-89.
5.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
6.
BokD. (2005). Universities in the marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BruunH. H. (2007). Science, values and politics in Max Weber’s methodology. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
8.
CasiniS.NeresiniF. (2012). Behind closed doors: scientists’ and science communicators’ discourses on science in society. A study across European research institutions. Tecnoscienza, 3, 37-62.
9.
CheneyG.AshcraftK. L. (2007). Considering “the professional” in communication studies: Implications for theory and research within and beyond the boundaries of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 17, 146-175.
10.
CheneyG.ChristensenL. T.ZornT. E.GaneshS. (2011). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
DaviesS. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
13.
van DijckJ. (1998). Imagenation: Popular images of genetics. London, England: Macmillan.
14.
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
15.
ElsbachK. D.KramerR. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442-476.
16.
EtzkowitzH. (1998). The norms of entrepreneural science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823.
17.
FeltU. (2007). Science and governance: Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
18.
GioiaD. A.SchultzM.CorleyK. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
19.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20.
GutheyE.ClarkT.JacksonB. (2009). Demystifying business celebrity. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
HatchM. J.SchultzM. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 356-366.
22.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
23.
HorstM.IrwinA. (2010). Nations at ease with radical knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40, 105-126.
24.
JainS.GeorgeG.MaltarichM. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38, 922-935.
25.
KleinmanD. L.VallasS. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30, 451-492.
26.
LamA. (2010). From “ivory tower traditionalists” to “entrepreneurial scientists”? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307-340.
27.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Martín-SempereM. J.Garzón-GarcíaB.Rey-RochaJ. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 349-367.
29.
MejlgaardN. (2009). The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy, 36, 483-496.
30.
NelkinD.LindeeM. S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
31.
NeresiniF.BucchiM. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 64-79.
32.
PearsonG.PringleS. M.ThomasJ. N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 279-289.
33.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
34.
The Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Royal Society, Research Councils UK & Wellcome Trust.
35.
ShattockM. (2009). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy. Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
36.
SlaughterS.LeslieL. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
TaylorJ. R.EveryE. J. V. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166.
39.
von RotenF. C. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33, 52-75.
40.
WatermeyerR. (2012). Measuring the impact values of public engagement in medical contexts. Science Communication, 34, 752-775.
41.
WeberM. (2004). The “objectivity” of knowledge in social science and social policy. In WhimsterS. (Ed.), The essential Weber: A reader (pp. 359-405). London, England: Routledge.
42.
WeickK. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
