Advertisement

Society

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 246–255 | Cite as

Open Science and the Science-Society Relationship

  • Martin LakomýEmail author
  • Renata Hlavová
  • Hana Machackova
Symposium: New Measures, New Ideas

Abstract

Nowadays, the prevailing trend in the science-society relationship is to engage with the broader public, which is beneficial for the public, scientific institutes, scientific findings, and the legitimacy of science as a whole. This article provides a broad review of the rapidly growing research on Open Science and identifies the gaps in the current knowledge for future research. The review focuses on the science-society relationship, such that knowledge from this field is summarised and systematised. Insight into the most salient topics, including science communication, public engagement with science, public cognition of science, and challenges and potential unintended consequences connected to interactions with the public are examined. The first section of the paper focuses on science communication which involves efforts and approaches to inform the public about science by the most effective means. The section on public engagement reviews how scientists and scientific institutions are increasingly involved in direct interactions with the public and different groups of stakeholders to make science more open. The section focusing on public cognition of science provides information about public knowledge, perception, and trust regarding science, which both determines and is formed by public engagement. Last, risks, ethical issues, and data issues connected to the implementation of Open Science principles are reviewed, as there are many unintended consequences of Open Science which are examined by this current research. In conclusion, research covering the science-society relationship is rapidly growing. However, it brings multiple challenges as well as opportunities which are captured and discussed in a variety of existing studies. This article provides a coherent overview of this field in order to bring more comprehensible knowledge to scientists, scientific institutions, and outreach professionals.

Keywords

Science-society relationship Open Science Public involvement Benefits Challenges Review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 741527.

Further Reading

  1. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X.
  2. Ahram, M., Othman, A., Shahrouri, M., & Mustafa, E. 2013. Factors influencing public participation in biobanking. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(4), 445–451.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.174.Google Scholar
  3. Alender, B. 2016. Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: A Deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), A04.Google Scholar
  4. Allgaier, J. 2012. On the Shoulders of YouTube: Science in Music Videos. Science Communication, 35(2), 266–275.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454949.Google Scholar
  5. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. 2008. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M. W., Shukla, R., & Kakkar, P. 2012. Public Understanding of Science in Europe 1989–2005: A Eurobarometer Trend File. Cologne.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11382.
  8. Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Blondel, C. 2008. Science and Spectacle in the European Enlightenment. Aldershot:Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. 2011. What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239–263.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972.Google Scholar
  10. Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. 2016. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Undersanding of Science, 25(1), 2–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. 2013. Whose Science Do You Believe?Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441691.Google Scholar
  12. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. 2014. The Public’s Bounded Understanding of Science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.Google Scholar
  13. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. 2008. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Abingdon:Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bull, S., Roberts, N., & Parker, M. 2015. Views of Ethical Best Practices in Sharing Individual-Level Data From Medical and Public Health Research: A Systematic Scoping Review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 225–238.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615594767.Google Scholar
  15. Bultitude, K. 2014. Comment Science festivals: do they succeed in reaching beyond the ‘already engaged. Journal of Science Communication, 13(4), C01.Google Scholar
  16. Bultitude, K., McDonald, D., & Custead, S. 2011. The rise and rise of Science Festivals – an international review of organised events to celebrate science. International Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 165–188.Google Scholar
  17. Capocasa, M., Anagnostou, P., D’Abramo, F., Matteucci, G., Dominici, V., Destro Bisol, G., & Rufo, F. 2016. Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks: an explorative survey. PeerJ, 4, e1613.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1613.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, J., Kim, S., Kang, M., Shim, J. C., & Ma, D. H. 2017. The gap in scientific knowledge and role of science communication in South Korea. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516685487.Google Scholar
  19. Cook, S. B., Druger, M., & Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. 2011. Scienti fi c literacy and attitudes towards American space exploration among college undergraduates. Space Policy, 27(1), 48–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2010.12.001.Google Scholar
  20. Cribb, J., & Sari, T. 2010. Open science: shaking knowledge in the global century. Collingwood:CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. de Saille, S. 2015. Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.Google Scholar
  22. Del Savio, L., Prainsack, B., & Buyx, A. 2016. Crowdsourcing the Human Gut. Is crowdsourcing also ‘citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(03), A03.Google Scholar
  23. Destro Bisol, G., Anagnostou, P., Capocasa, M., Bencivelli, S., Cerroni, A., Contreras, J., … Boulton, G. 2014. Perspectives on Open Science and scientific data sharing: an interdisciplinary workshop. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 92, 179–200.  https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.92006
  24. Dickerson-Lange, S. E., Bradley Eitel, K., Dorsey, L., Link, T. E., & Lundquist, J. D. 2016. Challenges and successes in engaging citizen scientists to observe snow cover: from public engagement to an educational collaboration. Journal of Science Communication, 15(01), A01.Google Scholar
  25. Dijkstra, A. M. 2017. Analysing Dutch Science Cafés to better understand the science-society relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 16(1), A03.Google Scholar
  26. Dijkstra, A. M., & Gutteling, J. M. 2012. Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics. Science Communication, 34(3), 363–391.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011417894.Google Scholar
  27. Domegan, C., Davidson, K., & McCauley, V. 2010. Realising the Management Challenges for Science Communication Outreach: A Social Marketing Perspective. Irish Journal of Management, 30(1), 89–109.Google Scholar
  28. Dunwoody, S. 2008. Science journalism. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 15–26). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Eagleman, D. M. 2013. Why Public Dissemination of Science Matters: A Manifesto. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(30), 12147–12149.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2556-13.2013.Google Scholar
  30. Ehrenfreund, P., Peter, N., & Billings, L. 2010. Acta Astronautica Building long-term constituencies for space exploration: The challenge of raising public awareness and engagement in the United States and in Europe. Acta Astronautica, 67(3), 502–512.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.03.002.Google Scholar
  31. Engage2020. 2015. Action Catalogue. Retrieved September 5, 2017, from http://actioncatalogue.eu/. Accessed 5 Sept 2017
  32. Entradas, M. 2015. Science and the public: The public understanding of science and its measurements. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 14(1), 71–85.  https://doi.org/10.1386/pjss.14.1.71.Google Scholar
  33. Eurobarometer. 2013. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology, (November).Google Scholar
  34. European Commission. 2009. Challenging Futures of Science in Society: Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Report of the MASIS Expert Group Setup by the European Commission. EUR 24039, 80 S.  https://doi.org/10.2777/467
  35. European Commission. 2016. EU Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. European Comission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  https://doi.org/10.2777/061652
  36. Evans, J. H. 2014. Faith in science in global perspective: Implications for transhumanism. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 814–832.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514523712.Google Scholar
  37. Exley, K., Cano, N., Aerts, D., Biot, P., Casteleyn, L., Kolossa-gehring, M., … Sepai, O. 2015. Communication in a Human biomonitoring study: Focus group work, public engagement and lessons learnt in 17 European countries. Environmental Research, 141, 31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.003
  38. Felt, U., & Fochler, M. 2008. The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 489–499.  https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329086.Google Scholar
  39. Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., & Schildhauer, T. 2015. Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 581–601.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6.Google Scholar
  40. Gelmez Burakgazi, S., & Yildirim, A. 2014. Accessing Science Through Media: Uses and Gratifications Among Fourth and Fifth Graders for Science Learning. Science Communication, 36(2), 168–193.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013505847.Google Scholar
  41. Gemen, R., Breda, J., Coutinho, D., Celemín, L. F., Khan, S., Kugelberg, S., … Hadwiger, K. 2015. Stakeholder engagement in food and health innovation research programming – key learnings and policy recommendations from the INPROFOOD project. Nutrition Bulletin, 40(1), 54–65.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12127
  42. Grand, A., Holliman, R., Collins, T., & Adams, A. 2016. “We muddle our way through”: shared and distributed expertise in digital engagement with research. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), A05.Google Scholar
  43. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge:Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Grigorov, I. 2014. Importance & benefits of Open Science for ubiquitous, sharing, dissemination & impact. Veliko Tarnovo:FOSTER Open Science.Google Scholar
  45. Guenther, L., & Joubert, M. 2017. Science communication as a field of research: identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), A02.Google Scholar
  46. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. 2016. Evoking vigilance: Would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog? Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 992–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516646048.Google Scholar
  47. Impey, B. C., Buxner, S., Antonellis, J., Johnson, E., & King, C. 2011. A Twenty-Year Survey of Science Literacy Among College Undergraduates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 31–38.Google Scholar
  48. Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton:Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Jennett, C., Kloetzer, L., Schneider, D., Iacovides, I., Cox, A. L., Gold, M., … Talsi, Y. 2016. Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(03), A05.Google Scholar
  50. Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. 2014. Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624.Google Scholar
  51. Joly, Y., Dalpé, G., So, D., & Birko, S. 2015. Fair shares and sharing fairly: A survey of public views on open science, informed consent and participatory research in biobanking. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129893.Google Scholar
  52. Kaslow, N. 2015. Translating Psychological Science to the Public. American Psychologist, 70(5), 361–371.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039448.Google Scholar
  53. Kawamoto, S., Nakayama, M., & Saijo, M. 2013. Using a scientific literacy cluster to determine participant attitudes in scientific events in Japan, and potential applications to improving science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 12(1), A01.Google Scholar
  54. Kind, P. M., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. 2010. Developing attitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(07), 871–893.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600909091.Google Scholar
  55. Knight, D. 2006. Public understanding of science: a history of communicating scientific ideas. Abingdon:Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Koolstra, C. M. 2008. An example of a science communication evaluation study: Discovery07, a Dutch science party. Journal of Science Communication, 7(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  57. Kuhn, D., Arvidsson, T. S., Lesperance, R., & Corprew, R. 2017. Can Engaging in Science Practices Promote Deep Understanding of Them? Science Education, 101(2), 232–250.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21263.Google Scholar
  58. Land-Zandstra, A. M., Devilee, J. L. A., Snik, F., Buurmeijer, F., & van den Broek, J. M. 2016. Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 45–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515602406.Google Scholar
  59. Lehmkuhl, M., Boyadjieva, P., Cunningham, Y., Karamanidou, C., Mörä, T., Schiebel, L., … Trench, B. 2016. Audience reach of science on television in 10 European countries: An analysis of people-meter data. Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), 223–235.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514536295
  60. Logan, R. A. 2001. Science Mass Communication: Its Conceptual History. Science Communication, 23(2), 135–163.Google Scholar
  61. Logan, M., & Skamp, K. 2008. Engaging Students in Science Across the Primary Secondary Interface: Listening to the Students’ Voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501–527.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9063-8.Google Scholar
  62. Lörcher, I., & Taddicken, M. 2017. Discussing climate change online. Topics and perceptions in online climate change communication in different online public arenas. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), A03.Google Scholar
  63. Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. 2007. Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 97–109.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506062467.Google Scholar
  64. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. 2014. Informal Learning Through Science Media Usage. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 86–103.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916215.Google Scholar
  65. Majumder, M. A., Cook-Deegan, R., & McGuire, A. L. 2016. Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing. PLoS Biology, 14(11), e2000206.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000206.Google Scholar
  66. Martiny, K. M., Pedersen, D. B., & Birkegaard, A. 2016. Open Media Science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(06), A02.Google Scholar
  67. Master, Z., Claudio, J. O., Rachul, C., Wang, J. C. Y., Minden, M. D., & Caulfield, T. 2013. Cancer patient perceptions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobanking. BMC Medical Genomics, 6(8).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-6-8.
  68. Masters, K., Oh, E. Y., Cox, J., Simmons, B., Lintott, C., Graham, G., … Holmes, K. 2016. Science learning via participation in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(03), A07.Google Scholar
  69. McDermott, M., & Kuhn, M. 2012. Communicating like a scientist with multimodal writing. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 58(2), 53–55.Google Scholar
  70. Medvecky, F., & Macknight, V. 2017. Building the economic-public relationship: learning from science communication and science studies. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), A01.Google Scholar
  71. Miller, J. D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001.Google Scholar
  72. Mizumachi, E., Matsuda, K., Kano, K., Kawakami, M., & Kato, K. 2011. Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: a study using “science cafes”. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), A02.Google Scholar
  73. Morcillo, J. M., Czurda, K., & Trotha, C. Y. R. 2016. Typologies of the popular science web video, 15(04).Google Scholar
  74. Muñoz, A., Moreno, C., & Luján, J. L. 2012. Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science, 21(2), 242–253.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510373813
  75. Navid, E. L., & Einsiedel, E. F. 2012. Article Synthetic biology in the Science Café: what have we learned about public engagement? Journal of Science Communication, 11(4), A02.Google Scholar
  76. Neresini, F., & Bucchi, M. 2011. Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 64–79.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510388363.Google Scholar
  77. Orthia, L. A. 2016. Democratizing science in the eighteenth century: resonances between Condorcet’ s Sketch (1795) and twenty-first century science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), A04.Google Scholar
  78. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. 2003. Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199.Google Scholar
  79. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.Google Scholar
  80. Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  81. Pinto, B., Marçal, D., & Vaz, S. G. 2015. Communicating through humour: A project of stand-up comedy about science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 776–793.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513511175.Google Scholar
  82. Post, S. 2016. Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 61–70.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514521542.Google Scholar
  83. Prpic, K. 2011. Science, the public, and social elites: How the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science, 20(6), 733–750.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510366363
  84. Ranger, M., & Bultitude, K. 2016. ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 361–378.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514555054.Google Scholar
  85. Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. 2015. Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement With Science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534967.Google Scholar
  86. Retzbach, J., & Otto, L. 2016. Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science, (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515575253
  87. Riesch, H., Potter, C., & Davies, L. 2013. Combining citizen science and public engagement: The open airlaboratories programme. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.03.002.
  88. Roger, E., & Klistorner, S. 2016. BioBlitzes help science communicators engage local communities in environmental research. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), A06.Google Scholar
  89. Rowe, G., Rawsthorne, D., Scarpello, T., & Dainty, J. R. 2010. Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 225–239.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508096780.Google Scholar
  90. RRI Tools. 2017. RRI Tools: project briefing sheet. Retrieved from https://www.rri-tools.eu/documents/10184/16806/RRI+Tools+Project+Brief.pdf/183c8a96-c414-4fab-80b9-31ccecedaa47. Accessed 19 May 2017
  91. Schäfer, M. S. 2009. From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008326943.Google Scholar
  92. Schäfer, M. S. 2011. Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology Compass, 5(6), 399–412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00373.x.Google Scholar
  93. Scharrer, L., Rupieper, Y., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. 2016. When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516680311.Google Scholar
  94. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91–94.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.361.Google Scholar
  95. Science and Technology Advisory Council. 2013. Science for an informed, sustainable and inclusive knowledge society. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/president/advisory-council/documents/stac_policy_paper_no_1_290813.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2017
  96. Shea, N. A. 2015. Examining the Nexus of Science Communication and Science Education: A Content Analysis of Genetics News Articles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 397–409.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21193.Google Scholar
  97. Stiver, A., Barroca, L., Minocha, S., Richards, M., & Roberts, D. 2015. Civic crowdfunding research: Challenges, opportunities, and future agenda. New Media & Society, 17(2), 249–271.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814558914.Google Scholar
  98. Stodden, V. 2010. Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), A05.Google Scholar
  99. Szu, E., Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. D. 2016. Factual accuracy and the cultural context of science in popular media: Perspectives of media makers, middle school students, entertainment television program. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516655685.Google Scholar
  100. Takahashi, B., & Tandoc Jr., E. C. 2016. Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Scienceanding of Science, 25(6), 674–690.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986.Google Scholar
  101. Tatalovic, M. 2009. Science comics as tools for science education and communication: a brief, exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication, 8(4), A02.Google Scholar
  102. Thaler, A. D., & Shiffman, D. 2015. Fish tales: Combating fake science in popular media. Ocean and Coastal Management, 115, 88–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.005.Google Scholar
  103. Topham, J. R. 2009. Focus: historicizing “popular science” – Introduction. Isis, 100(2), 310–318.  https://doi.org/10.1086/599551.Google Scholar
  104. Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. 2002. Advancing Science Communication: A Survey of Science Communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300306.Google Scholar
  105. Turney, J. 2008. Popular science books. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 5–14). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  106. von Roten, F. C., & Moeschler, O. 2007. Article Is art a “good” mediator in a Science Festival? Journal of Science Communication, 6(3), A2.Google Scholar
  107. Watson, M. 2015. When will ‘open science’ become simply ‘science’? Genome Biology, 16(101), 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2.Google Scholar
  108. Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. 2016. Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706–718.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Lakomý
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renata Hlavová
    • 2
  • Hana Machackova
    • 2
  1. 1.Office for Population Studies/Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social StudiesMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzechia
  2. 2.Institute for Research on Children, Youth and Families, Faculty of Social StudiesMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzechia

Personalised recommendations