This article examines the visibility of social scientists in the context of crisis media reporting by using the example of the German populist radical right movement PEGIDA. Based on previous research, a role typology was developed to serve as a framework for the empirical study. A content analysis of German newspapers demonstrates that social scientists are quite visible in the media coverage of PEGIDA and are presented mainly in the role of intellectuals. At the same time, new roles for social scientists are also discernible. Based on these findings, an extended role typology was developed to provide points of reference for further research.
AlbækE.Munk ChristiansenP.TogebyL. (2003). Experts in the Mass Media. Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961-2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 937-948.
2.
BachlM.VögeleC. (2013). Guttenbergs Zeugen? Eine Replikation und Erweiterung von Hagens (1992) „Die opportunen Zeugen” anhand der Berichterstattung über Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg im Kontext der Plagiatsaffäre [Guttenberg’s Witnesses? A replication and extension of Hagens (1992) “The opportune witnesses” by means of the coverage of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg in the context of plagiarism]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61, 345-367.
3.
BarlaiM.FähnrichB.GriesslerC.RhombergM. (2017). The migrant crisis—European perspectives and national discourses. Berlin, Germany: LIT.
BlöbaumB.ScheuA. M.SummA.VolpersA-M. (2013). Medien, Fächer und Politik. Wie Medien forschungspolitische Entscheidungen in verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen beeinflussen [Media, subjects and politics. How to influence media policy decisions in different scientific disciplines]. In GrandeE.JansenD.JarrenO.RipA.SchimankU.WeingartP. (Eds.), Neue Governance in der Wissenschaft. Reorganisation—externe Anforderungen—Medialisierung [New governance in science. Reorganization–external requirements–medialization] (pp. 289-309). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
6.
BrantnerC.HuberB. (2013). How visible is communication studies? Press coverage of the discipline in three German-language quality newspapers. Studies in Communication / Media, 2, 247-264.
7.
BrewerP. R.SigelmanL. (2002). Political scientists as color commentators. Framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 23-35.
8.
BrownM. (2008). Review of Roger S. Pielke, Jr., The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Minerva, 46, 485-489.
9.
CassidyA. (2014). Communicating the social sciences. A specific challenge? In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 186-197). London, England: Routledge.
10.
DahlgrenP. (2012). Public intellectuals, online media, and public spheres: Current realignments. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25, 95-110. doi:10.1007/s10767-012-9124-5
11.
DahrendorfR. (2006). Homo Sociologicus: ein Versuch zur Geschichte, Bedeutung und Kritik der Kategorie der sozialen Rolle [Homo Sociologicus: an attempt at history, meaning and criticism of the category of social role] (16th ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS. (Original work published 1958)
12.
DaphiP.KocybaP.NeuberM.RooseJ.RuchtD.SchollF.. . . ZajakS. (2015). Protestforschung am Limit. Eine soziologische Annäherung an Pegida [Protest research at the limit. A sociological approach to Pegida]. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/pegida-report_berlin_2015.pdf
13.
DiamondJ. (2006). Kollaps—Warum Gesellschaften überleben oder untergehen [Collapse—Why societies survive or perish]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Fischer.
14.
FähnrichB.Janssen DanyiC.NothhaftH. (2015). The German plagiarism crisis: Defending and explaining the workings of scholarship on the front stage. Journal of Communication Management, 19, 20-38. doi:10.1108/JCOM-11-2013-0081
15.
FullerS. (2006). The public intellectual as agent of justice: In search of a regime. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 39, 147-156.
16.
GattoneC. F. (2012). The social scientist as public intellectual in an age of mass media. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25, 175-186.
17.
GeigesL.MargS.WalterF. (2015). Pegida. Die schmutzige Seite der Zivilgesellschaft? [PEGIDA. The dirty side of civil society?]. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
18.
GörkeA. (2008). Medien-Katastrophen—ein Beitrag zur journalistischen Krisenkommunikation [Media disasters—A contribution to journalistic crisis communication]. In FelgentreffC.GladeT. (Eds.), Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen [Natural hazards and social disasters] (pp. 121-132). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
19.
HagenL. (1992). Die Opportunen Zeugen. Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion [The opportunity witnesses. Construction mechanisms of bias in the newspaper reporting on the census discussion]. Publizistik, 37, 444-460.
20.
HaugF. (1994). Kritik der Rollentheorie [Criticism of the role theory]. Hamburg, Germany: Argument-Verlag.
21.
HorsleyJ. S. (2016). Media framing of disasters. Implications of disaster response communicators. In SchwarzA.SeegerM. W.AuerC. (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 155-164). Chichester, England: Wiley.
22.
JasanoffS. (2011). Cosmopolitan knowledge: Climate science and global civic epistemology. In DryzekS.NorgaardR. B.SchlosbergD. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 129-143). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23.
KepplingerH. M. (2011). Journalismus als Beruf [Journalism as a profession]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
24.
KepplingerH. M.BrosiusH.-B.StaabJ. F.LinkeG. (1989). Instrumentelle Aktualisierung. Grundlagen einer Theorie publizistischer Konflikte [Instrument update. Basics of a theory of journalistic conflicts]. In KaaseM.SchulzW. (Eds.), Massenkommunikation. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde [Mass communication. Theories, methods, findings] (pp. 199-220). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
25.
KlimmtC.SowkaA. (2013). Viel Wissen—keine Stimme? Die Resonanz der Migrationsforschung in der Integrationsdebatte [Much knowledge–no voice? The response of migration research in the integration debate]. In BrinkmannK.UslucanH.-H. (Eds.), Dabeisein und Dazugehören: Integration in Deutschland [Being there and belonging: Integration in Germany] (pp. 307-325). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
26.
KohringM. (2014). Vom Regen in die Traufe? Medien und Medialisierung [From the rain in the eaves? Media and medialization]. In DreyerM.SchmidtU.DickeK. (Eds.), Die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften an der Universität von morgen: Innenansichten und Außenperspektiven [The humanities and social sciences at the university of tomorrow: Interior views and external perspectives] (pp. 137-145). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
27.
KuckartzU. (2014). Qualitative text analysis. A guide to methods, practice & using software. London, England: Sage.
28.
MacriA. (2017). Give the public the tools to trust scientists. Nature, 541, 261.
29.
MertonR. K. (1957). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120.
30.
MertonR. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
31.
MertonR. K. (1985). Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen: Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie [Development and change of research interests: essays on the sociology of science]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
32.
MuddeC. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MuddeC. (2011). Radical right parties in Europe: What, who, why?Participation, 35(1), 12-15.
34.
NachtweyO. (2016). Pegida, politische Gelegenheitsstrukturen und der neue Autoritarismus [Pegida, political opportunity structures and the new authoritarianism]. In RehbergK. S.KunzF.SchlinzigT. (Eds.), PEGIDA—Rechtspopulismus zwischen Fremdenangst und „Wende”-Enttäuschung? [PEGIDA — Rightwing Populism between Xenophobia and the Disappointment after the German Reunification] (pp. 299-312). Bielefeld, Germany: Transkript-Verlag.
PetersH. P. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken [Scientific experts in public communication about technology, environment and risks]. In NeidhardtF. (Ed.), Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen [Public, public opinion, social movements] (pp. 162-190) (Special Edition 34 of the Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social Psychology). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
37.
PetersH. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.
38.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveignéS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008). Science Communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321 (5886), 204-205.
39.
PielkeR. S.Jr. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
RogersM. B.PearceJ. M. (2016). The psychology of crisis communication. In SchwarzA.SeegerM. W.AuerC. (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 34-44). Chichester, England: Wiley.
41.
RosenthalU.t’HartP.CharlesM. T. (1989). The world of crises and crisis management. In RosenthalU.CharlesM. T.t’HartP. (Eds.), Coping with crises: The management of disasters, riots and terrorism (pp. 3-33). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
42.
RuserA. (2017). Experts and science and politics. In TurnerS. P.OuthwatiteW. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political sociology (2 Volumes). London, England: Sage.
43.
SchäferM. S. (2007). Wissenschaft in den Medien. Die Medialisierung naturwissenschaftlicher Themen [Science in the media. The medialization of science subjects]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
44.
SchäferM. S. (2012). Taking stock: A Meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage in science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 650-663. doi:10.1177/0963662510387559
45.
SchäfersB. (2013). Einführung in die Soziologie [Introduction to sociology]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
46.
ScheuA.VolpersA.-M. (2017). Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften im öffentlichen Diskurs [Social sciences and humanities in public discourse]. In BonfadelliH.FähnrichB.LüthjeC.MildeJ.RhombergM.SchäferM. (Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation [Research field science communication] (pp. 391-404). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
47.
ScheufeleB. (2005). Mediale Legitimierung von Kriegen durch Rollen-Zuschreibung. Eine explorative Studie zur Berichterstattung deutscher Nachrichtenmagazine über den Kosovo-Krieg. [Medial legitimation of wars by role-attribution. An exploratory study on the coverage of German news magazines on the Kosovo war.]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 53, 352-368.
48.
SchneiderS. K.JordanM. P. (2016). Political science research on crisis and crisis communications. In SchwarzA.SeegerM. W.AuerC. (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 13-23). Chichester, England: Wiley.
49.
StehrN.GrundmannR. (2010). Expertenwissen. Die Kultur und die Macht von Experten, Beratern und Ratgebern [Expert knowledge. The culture and power of experts, consultants and advisors]. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
50.
StehrN.RuserA. (2016). Social scientists as technicians, advisors and meaning producers. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. doi:10.1080/13511610.2016.1207505
51.
SummA.VolpersA.-M. (2015). What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 775-790. doi:10.1177/0963662515583419
52.
TrenchB.FahyD.IrwinA.RiedlingerM. (2016, April26-28). Science criticism: What is it, and why do we need it? Panel Report, 14th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST), Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://pcst.co/archive/paper/2763
53.
TurnerS. P. (2003). Liberal democracy 3.0. London, England: Sage.
54.
VorländerH.HeroldM.SchällerM. (2015). Wer geht zu Pegida und warum? Eine empirische Untersuchung von Pegida-Demonstranten in Dresden [Who goes to Pegida and why? An empirical investigation of Pegida protesters in Dresden]. In Schriften zur Verfassung und Demokratieforschung0Writings on constitution and democracy research]. Dresden, Germany: Zentrum für Verfassung und Demokratieforschung. Retrieved from https://tu-dresden.de/gsw/phil/powi/poltheo/ressourcen/dateien/news/vorlaender_herold_schaeller_pegida_studie?lang=de
55.
WeichertS. A. (2008). Krisen als Medienereignisse. Zur Ritualisierung mediatisierter Kommunikation im Fernsehen [Crises as media events. On the ritualization of mediatised communication on television]. In WinterC.HeppA.KrotzF. (Eds.), Theorien der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft: Grundlegende Diskussionen, Forschungsfelder und Theorieentwicklung [Theories in communication and media science: Basic discussions, research fields and theory development] (pp. 311-328). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS.
56.
WormerH. (2008). Science journalism. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Online (pp. 4512-4514). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
