Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Medialization and Credibility: Paradoxical Effect or (Re)-Stabilization of Boundaries? Epidemiology and Stem Cell Research in the Press

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 28))

Abstract

This chapter asks how two seemingly contradictory findings can be explained: The conceptually sound reasoning that more “negative” science in the news leads to a loss in credibility on the one hand and empirical research showing the stability of the epistemological status of science on the other hand. By distinguishing between normative and cognitive expectations, three possible effects on credibility can be identified: (1) a loss in credibility, (2) a tension between normative and cognitive expectations and (3) a re-stabilization of the credibility of science. In the coverage of epidemiology and stem cell research a re-stabilization of credibility and a tension between normative and cognitive expectations can be observed, a loss in credibility cannot. I then argue that this finding can be attributed to the logic of mass media. A loss in credibility would imply a fundamental break with deeply rooted cultural patterns, while a tension as well as a re-stabilization of the relationship between normative and cognitive expectations is compatible with the integration function of mass media: co-ordinating the mutual expectations and expectation-expectations of different social spheres. Seen from this perspective, medialization on the one hand creates a credibility problem that fulfils the integration function of binding science to the normative expectations of its social environment. On the other hand, it solves a potential credibility problem by providing the conditions necessary for a more “realistic” re-alignment of cognitive and normative expectations. Thus, it appears as the functional and necessary counterpart to the permeation of science into all areas of society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This study was part of the project “Integration of scientific expertise into media-based public discourses (INWEDIS)” (see Peters et al. 2008) which was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the research programme “Knowledge for Decision-making Processes – Research on the Relationship between Science, Politics and Society.”

  2. 2.

    Since the interpretation method objective hermeneutics produces very long texts, the quotes used serve to illustrate the results of the analysis.

References

  • Bauer, M., J. Durant, A. Ragnarsdottir, and A. Rudolfsdottir (1995). Science and technology in the British press, 1946–1992. The Media Monitor Project, Vol 1–4, Technical Report. London: Science Museum and Wellcome Trust for the History of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blöbaum, B. (1994). Journalismus als soziales System. Geschichte, Ausdifferenzierung und Verselbständigung. Opladen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, B. P. (1995). Disrupted boundaries: New reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1987). Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17(4), 689–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, G. H. (1967). The pure-science ideal and democratic culture. Science, New Series, 156(3782), 1699–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmer, C., F. Badenschier, and H. Wormer (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 878–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, E. (1995). Interaktion, Interaktivität und die Personalisierung der Massenmedien. Soziale Systeme, 1, 225–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, M., S. Rödder, and P. Weingart (2007). Fraud: Causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Reports, 8(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. and M. H. Ruge (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J. and M. S. Schäfer (2009). Two normative models of science in the public sphere: Human genome sequencing in German und US mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., H. Nowotny, and C. Limoges (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamic of science and research in contemporary societies. London et al.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haran, J. (2007). Managing the boundaries between maverick cloners and mainstream scientists: The life cycle of a news event in a contested field. New Genetics and Society, 26(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haran, J. and J. Kitzinger (2009). Modest witnessing and managing the boundaries between science and the media: A case study breakthrough and scandal. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. (1994). From Faust to Strangelove. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, A. (2009). Mediale Konstrukte von Wissenschaft in den Bereichen Stammzellforschung und Epidemiologie. In H. P. Peters (ed.), Medienorientierung biomedizinischer Forscher im internationalen Vergleich. Die Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft und Journalismus und ihre politische Relevanz. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich, pp. 177–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, A. J. and D. L. Kleinman (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohring, M. (1997). Die Funktion des Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Ein systemtheoretischer Entwurf. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohring, M. (2005). Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkowski, F. (1993). Publizistik als autopoietisches System. Politik und Massenmedien. Eine systemtheoretische Analyse. Opladen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkowski, F. (2002). Massenmedien und die Integration der Gesellschaft aus Sicht der autopoietischen Systemtheorie: Steigern die Medien das Reflexionspotential sozialer Systeme? In K. Imhof, R. Blum, and O. Jarren (eds.), Integration und Medien. Mediensymposium Luzern, Bd. 7, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 110–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science. How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oevermann, U. (1991). Genetischer Strukturalismus und das sozialwissenschaftliche Problem der Erklärung der Entstehung des Neuen. In S. Müller-Doohm (ed.), Jenseits der Utopie: Theoriekritik der Gegenwart. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 267–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oevermann, U. (2000). Die Methode der Fallrekonstruktion in der Grundlagenforschung sowie der klinischen und pädagogischen Praxis. In K. Kraimer (ed.), Die Fallrekonstruktion. Frankfurt/M. Suhrkamp, pp. 58–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oevermann, U., T. Allert, E. Konau, et al. (1979). Die Methodologie einer ‘objektiven Hermeneutik’ und ihre allgemein forschungslogische Bedeutung. In H. G. Soeffner (ed.), Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 352–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken. In F. Neidhardt (ed.), Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 162–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 131–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P., et al. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In D. Cheng et al. (eds.), Communicating science in social contexts. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 71–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, S. (1994). Science and technology: When do they become front page news? Public Understanding of Science, 3(1), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2004). Abduction, deduction and induction in qualitative research. In U. Flick et al. (eds.), Companion to qualitative research. London: Sage, pp. 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M. S. (2008). Diskurskoalitionen in den Massenmedien. Ein Beitrag zur theoretischen und methodischen Verbindung von Diskursanalyse und Öffentlichkeitssoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60(2), 367–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (1976). Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien. Analysen der aktuellen Berichterstattung. Freiburg: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, B. (2001). Public science: Media configuration and closure in the cold fusion controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen. Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, T. (2002). Integration durch Medien als Beziehung struktureller Kopplung. In K. Imhof, O. Jarren, and R. Blum (eds.), Integration und Medien. Reihe: Mediensymposium Luzern, Band 7, Wiesbaden, pp. 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, T. (2005). Vergesellschaftung durch Medienkommunikation als Inklusionsprozeß. In M. Jäckel and M. Mai (eds.), Online-Vergesellschaftung? Mediensoziologische Perspektiven auf neue Kommunikationstechnologien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1997). From ‘finalization’ to ‘Mode 2’: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 599–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zur Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2005). Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit. Essays zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke, H. (1998). Organisierte Wissensarbeit. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 27(3), 161–177.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB),  ,  

    Arlena Jung

Authors
  1. Arlena Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arlena Jung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bielefeld, Germany

    Simone Rödder

  2. , Bielefeld University, Institute for Science and Technology Stu, Universitätsstr. 25, Bielefeld, 33501, Germany

    Martina Franzen

  3. Bielefeld, 33501, Germany

    Peter Weingart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jung, A. (2012). Medialization and Credibility: Paradoxical Effect or (Re)-Stabilization of Boundaries? Epidemiology and Stem Cell Research in the Press. In: Rödder, S., Franzen, M., Weingart, P. (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation