Increased interactions between researchers and the media can change the individual and collective practices in science due to the considerations about media logic. This article uses the example of the team behind the Estonian satellite ESTCube-1 to describe the process of mediatization and its impacts on the research project. The quick and extensive adaption to media logic by the team can be attributed to the interplay of three elements: the role of the group leader, participation in media trainings, and regular interactions with the media. This article provides a model of how micro-level mediatization is likely to take place in science.
AltheideD. L. (2013). Media logic, social control, and fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223-238. doi:10.1111/comt.12017
2.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7, 285-300. doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
3.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. D.StorksdieckM. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186
4.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. D.YuanS.Abi GhannamN. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38, 356-381. doi:10.1177/1075547016645640
5.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971-987. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
6.
BlichfeldtB. S. (2007). What is “good” anyway? The interviewing of acquaintances (Working Paper No. 2011/1). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University.
7.
CharmazK.BelgraveL. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In GubriumJ.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA.McKinneyK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 347-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452218403
8.
CouldryN. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media & Society, 10, 373-391. doi:10.1177/1461444808089414
DudoA. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:10.1177/1075547012460845
11.
DudoA. (2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9, 761-775. doi:10.1111/soc4.12298
12.
EnvallJ.JanhunenP.ToivanenP.PajusaluM.IlbisE.KaldeJ.. . . KoivistoH. (2014). E-sail test payload of the ESTCube-1 nanosatellite. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 63(2 Suppl.), 210-221. doi:10.3176/proc.2014.2S.02
GartonS.CoplandF. (2010). “I like this interview; I get cakes and cats!” The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research, 10, 533-551. doi:10.1177/1468794110375231
15.
GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18, 265-282. doi:10.1177/1075547097018003005
16.
GöpfertW. (2007). The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In BauerM.BucchiM. (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 215-226). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
HjarvardS. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. London, England: Routledge.
18.
HorstM. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35, 758-779. doi:10.1177/1075547013487513
19.
KrotzF.HeppA. (2011). A concretization of mediatization: How mediatization works and why “mediatized worlds” are a helpful concept for empirical mediatization research. European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3, 137-152. doi:10.1386/ejpc.3.2.137
20.
LättS.SlavinskisA.IlbisE.KvellU.VoormansikK.KuluE.. . . NoormaM. (2014). ESTCube-1 nanosatellite for electric solar wind sail in-orbit technology demonstration. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 63(2 Suppl.), 200-209. doi:10.3176/proc.2014.2S.01
21.
LundbyK. (2014). Mediatization of communication. In LundbyK. (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 3-38). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
22.
MaeseeleP. (2013). On media and science in late modern societies. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37, 155-181. doi:10.1080/23808985.2013.11679149
23.
MarcinkowskiF. (2014). Mediatisation of politics: Reflections on the state of the concept. Javnost, 21(2), 5-22. doi:10.1080/13183222.2014.11009142
24.
MasonJ. (2004). Semistructured interview. In Lewis-BeckM.BrymanA.Futing LiaoT. (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412950589
25.
MillerS.FahyD. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31, 116-126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048
26.
OleskA. (in press). Media coverage of a strongly mediatized research project: The case of the Estonian satellite ESTCube-1. Mediální studia.
27.
PallasJ.FredrikssonM.WedlinL. (2016). Translating institutional logics: When the media logic meets professions. Organization Studies, 37, 1661-1684. doi:10.1177/0170840616655485
PetersH. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14102-14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110
30.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.CheveignéS.DunwoodyS.HeinrichsH.JungA.. . . PaquezA.-S. (2009). Medialisierung der Wissenschaft und ihre Relevanz für das Verhältnis zur Politik [Mediatization of science and its relevance to the relationship to politics]. In PetersH. P. (Ed.), Medienorientierung Biomedizinischer Forscher Im Internationalen Vergleich. Die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft & Journalismus Und Ihre Politische Relevanz (pp. 9-43). Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich. (2008).
31.
PlesnerU. (2012). The performativity of “media logic” in the mass mediation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 674-688. doi:10.1177/0963662510385309
32.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263. doi:10.1177/1075547007308009
33.
RödderS. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life.” Public Understanding of Science, 18, 452-463. doi:10.1177/0963662507081168
34.
RödderS.SchäferM. S. (2010). Repercussion and resistance. An empirical study on the interrelation between science and mass media. Communications, 35, 249-267. doi:10.1515/comm.2010.014
SchäferM. S. (2014). The media in the labs, and the labs in the media: What we know about the mediatization of science. In LundbyK. (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 571-594). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
37.
ScheuA. M.OleskA. (2018). National contextual influences on mediatization: The comparison of science decision makers in Estonia and Germany. Science Communication, 40, 366-392. doi:10.1177/1075547018766917
38.
ScheuA. M.VolpersA.-M.SummA.BlöbaumB. (2014). Medialization of research policy: Anticipation of and adaptation to journalistic logic. Science Communication, 36, 706-734. doi:10.1177/1075547014552727
39.
SchulzW. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19, 87-101. doi:10.1177/0267323104040696
40.
SlavinskisA.PajusaluM.KuusteH.IlbisE.EenmäeT.SünterI.. . . NoormaM. (2015). ESTCube-1 in-orbit experience and lessons learned. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 30(8), 12-22.
41.
SlavinskisA.ReinkubjasK.KahnK.EhrpaisH.KalninaK.KuluE.. . . NoormaM. (2015, December). The Estonian student satellite programme: Providing skills for the modern engineering labour market. Paper presented at the proceedings of First Symposium on Space Educational Activities, Padova, Italy.
42.
StanleyL. (2012). On auto/biography in sociology. In GoodwinJ. (Ed.), Sage library of research methods: Sage biographical research (pp. 101-112). London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446268537
43.
StrömbäckJ. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 228-246. doi:10.1177/1940161208319097
44.
TrenchB.MillerS. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39, 722-731. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs090
45.
VäliverronenE. (2001). Popularisers, interpreters, advocates, managers and critics: Framing science and scientists in the media. Nordicom Review, 22(2), 21-29. doi:10.1515/nor-2017-0353
46.
WeingartP. (2012). The lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 17-32). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
