The objective of this article is to analyze the role played by researchers in news media. The method is a quantitative content analysis of 640 newspaper articles combined with two surveys: of journalists (N = 362) and researchers (N = 342) respectively. The conclusions are that researchers from the soft disciplines mainly contribute to hard news or background items, where their role is to comment on daily events as public experts. They do this because they consider it career enhancing. The journalists who use them as sources are often inexperienced journalists. However, they set the agenda. Both parties perceive the cooperation positively although researchers tend to be more reserved than the journalists.
AlbækE (2011) The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism12(3): 335–348.
2.
AlbækEChristiansenPMTogebyL (2003) Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers 1961–2001. Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly80(4): 937–948.
3.
AllanS (2009) Making science newsworthy, exploring the concentions of science journalism. In: HollimanRWhiteleggEScanlonESmidtSThomasJ (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BauerMW (1995) Science and Technology in the British Press: 1946 to 1986. London: Science Museum, PUS Research Unit.
5.
BauerMWGregoryJ (2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In: BauerMWBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society – Science Comunication between News and Public Relations. Oxford: Routledge, 33–52.
6.
BubelaTMCaulfieldTA (2004) Do print media ‘hype’ genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal170(9): 1399–1407.
7.
Elmelund-PræstekærCWienC (2008) What’s the fuss about? The interplay of media hypes and politics. Press/Politics13(3): 247–266.
8.
GascoigneTMetcalfeJ (2010) Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication18(3): 265–282.
9.
GiannoulisCBotetzagiasISkanavisC (2010) Newspaper reporters’ priorities and beliefs about environmental journalism: An application of Q-methodology. Science Communication32(4): 425–466.
10.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems – Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HansenA (2009) Science, communication and media. In: HollimanRWhiteleggEScanlonESmidtSThomasJ (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–128.
12.
HansenADickinsonR (1992) Science coverage in the British mass media: Media output and source input. Communications17(3): 365–378.
13.
HargreavesIFergusonG (2000) Who’s Misunderstanding Whom?London: Economic and Social Research Council.
14.
KitzingerJChimbaMWilliamsAHaranJBoyceT (2008) Gender, Stereotypes and Expertise in the Press: How Newspapers Represent Female and Male Scientists. UK Resource Center for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University.
LundABPetersenJH (1999) Ny journalistuddannelse i Danmark [New journalism education in Denmark]. Nordicom Information3(21): 87–94.
17.
McComasKASimoneLM (2003) Media coverage of conflicts of interests in science. Science Communication24(4): 395–419.
18.
MartinSE (1991) Using expert sources in breaking science stories – a comparison of magazine types. Journalism Quarterly68(1–2): 179–187.
19.
MeilbyM (1996) Journalistikkens Grundtrin [Basic steps of journalism]. Århus: Ajour.
20.
Mountcastle-ShahETamborEBernhardBA. (2003) Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries: Development of an instrument and initial findings. Science Communication24(4): 458–478.
21.
MoyerAGreenerSBeauvaisJSaloveyP (1995) Accuracy of health research reported in the popular press: Breast cancer and mammography. Health Communication7(2): 147–161.
22.
PetersHP (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society17(31): 31–48.
SkovsgaardM (2010) The Danish Journalist. PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.
28.
StoffgrenHSB (2011) Syge mediestorme [Media hypes on diseases]. Master Cand. public., University of Southern Denmark, Odense.
29.
StåhleB (2006) Fornyelse i forskerstaben. Forskerpersonale og forskerrekruttering på danske universitetet 2004–2006 [Renewal of the scientific staff. Scientific researchers and recruitment at Danish universities 2004–2006]. Copenhagen: UNIC, 1–145.
30.
TannerAH (2004) Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations: A nationwide survey of local television health reporters. Science Communication25(June): 350–363.
31.
TerzisG (ed.) (2009) European Journalism Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
ValentiJM (1999) Commentary: How well do scientists communicate to media?Science Communication21(2): 172–178.
33.
VerhoevenP (2010) Sound-bite science: On the brevity of science and scientific experts in Western European television news. Science Communication32(3): 330–355.
34.
Von RotenFC (2011) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication33(1): 52–72.
35.
WeaverDALivelyEBimberB (2009) Searching for a frame. Science Communication31(2): 139–166.
36.
WienC (2001) Journalisters brug af ekspertkilder i danske aviser [The referece to expert sources in Danish newspapers]. Paper presented at the Nordmediakonference, Reykjavik. Available at: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/mr/iceland/papers/nine/CWien.doc
