Field-specific mediatization: Testing the combination of social theory and mediatization theory using the example of scientific communication

• Authors: Corinna Lüthje
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In contemporary media and communication science, mediatization is regarded as an “emerging paradigm”, but the term itself is diffuse and highly contingent. An attempt is made in this paper to integrate structural and individual concepts of mediatization theory by combining it with Bourdieu’s field theory using the example of science. After outlining the notion of mediatization underlying this text, the special features of scientific communication and the scientific field are presented. Hypotheses mentioned in the literature on the influence of new media technologies on science are contrasted with the state of research. This reveals that the impact of media innovations cannot be seen in a monocausal manner. In field-specific mediatization, they interact with various structural and individual elements.

Keywords

EN

Mediatization, mediated communication, Bourdieu, field theory, science communication, scholarly communication, post-normal science

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Mediatization Studies
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 1

Dates

published

2017

online

2017-11-13

Contributors

author

Corinna Lüthje

References

• Al-Aufi, A., Fulton, C. (2014). Use of social networking tools for informal scholarly communication in humanities and social sciences disciplines. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 147, pp. 436-445.
• Altheide, D. L., Snow, R. P. (1979). Media Logic. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Bader, A., Fritz, G., Gloning, T (2012). Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation 2010-2011: Eine Online-Befragung. Gießen: Giessener Elektronische Bibliothek. Available from http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8539/pdf/BaderDigitale_Wissenschaftskommunikation.pdf.
• Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57(10), pp. 1350-1367.
• Bourdieu, P. (1987). Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [La distinction : critique sociale du jugement, 1979]
• Bourdieu, P. (1992). Homo academicus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Homo academicus, 1984]
• Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sozialer Sinn. Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Le sens pratique, 1980]
• Carley, K., Wendt, K. (1991). Electronic mail and scientific communication. A study of SOAR extende research group. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 12, pp. 406–440.
• Cimenler, O., Reeves, K. A., Skvoretz, J. (2015). An evaluation of collaborative research in a college of engineering. Journal of Infometrics, Vol. 9, pp. 577-590.
• Clark, B. R., (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Conrad, J. (2008). Von Arrhenius zum IPCC. Wissenschaftliche Dynamik und Verankerung der Klimaforschung. Münster: MV-Verlag.
• Costa, S., Meadows, J. (2000). The impact of computer usage on scholarly communication among social scientists. Journal of Information Science. doi: 10.1177/0165551004233258
• Couldry, N. (2014). Mediatization and the future of field theory. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communiation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 227-248.
• Couldry, N., Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, Vol. 23(3), pp. 191-202.
• Cronin, B. (2003). Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures. Keynote address to the conference Scholarly Tribes and Tribulations: How tradition and technology are driving disciplinary change. ARL Washington DC. Available from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/cronin.pdf.
• Finnemann, N. O. (2011). Mediatization theory and digital media. Communications, Vol 36, pp. 67-89.
• Fleck, L. (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Frandsen, T. F. (2009). The effect of open access on un-plublished documents: A case study of economics working papers. Journal of Infometrics. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.12.002
• Fröhlich, G. (2008). Wissenschaftskommunikation und ihre Dysfunktionen: Wissenschaftsjournale, Peer Review, Impact Faktoren. In H. Hettwer, M. Lehmkuhl, H. Wormer, & F. Zotta (Eds.), WissensWelten. Gütersloh: Verlag der Bertelsmann Stiftung, pp. 64-80.
• Fry, J. (2004a). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, Vol. 42, pp. 299-316.
• Fry, J. (2004b). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: corpus-based linguistic as a case study. Literacy and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 19, pp. 303–319.
• Fry, J., Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33(2), pp. 115–133.
• Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J. (1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In von Schomburg, R. (Ed.), Science, Politics, and Morality. Scientific Uncertainty and Decisionmaking. Dordrecht u.a.: Kluver Academic Publishers.
• Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-normal science. report to International Society for Ecological Economics. Available from http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
• Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication: the essence of science – Facilitating information exchange among librariens, scientists, engineers and students. Pergamon Press: New York.
• Gisparg, P. (1994). First steps towards electronic research communication. Computers in Physics, Vol 8, pp. 390–396.
• Gloning, T., Fritz, G. (Eds.) 2011. Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate und ihre Nutzung. Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. Available from http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8227/
• Goodwin, S., Jeng, W., He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101129
• Gramelsberger, G. (2010). Computerexperimente. Zum Wandel der Wissenschaft im Zeitalter des Computers. Bielefeld: transcript.
• Gruzd, A., Staves, K., Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 2340-2350.
• Gu, F. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media. The Electronic Library, Vol. 29(6), pp. 762-776.
• Hagenhoff, S., Seidenfaden, L., Ortelbach, B., Schumann, M. (2007). Neue Formen der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag.
• Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public Access Computer Systems Review, Vol. 2, pp. 39–53.
• Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, Vol. 29(2), pp. 105-134.
• Jansson, A. (2015). Using Bourdieu in critical mediatization research: Communicational doxa and osmotic pressures in the field of UN organizations. MedieKultur, Vol. 58, pp. 13-29.
• Kaden, B. (2009). Library 2-0 und Wissenschaftskommunikation. Berlin: Simon Verlag für Bibliothekswesen.
• Kappas, M. (2009). Klimatologie. Klimaforschung im 21. Jahrhundert – Herausforderungen im 21. Jahrhundert für Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
• Kling, R. (2004). The internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. In C. Blaise (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 591-631.
• Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2001). Electronic journals, the internet, and scholarly communication. In C. Blaise (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 122-177.
• Kling, R., Mc Kim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 51(14), pp. 1306–1320.
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1984). Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis. Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.
• Koch, D, Moskaliuk, J. (2009). Onlinestudie: Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten im Web 2.0. e-learning and education Journal, 5. Available from http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/5/1842.
• Krauss, W., Schäfer, M. S., von Storch, H. (Ed.) 2012. Postnormal science: The case of climate research. Special issue. Nature and Culture, Vol. 7/2.
• Krotz, F. (2007). The meta-process of mediatization as a conceptual frame. Global Media and Communication, Vol. 3, pp. 256-260.
• Krotz, F. (2009). Mediatiziation. A concept which with to grasp media and societal change. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization. Concept, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 21-40.
• Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Latour, B., Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Lievrouw, L. A., Carley, K. (1990). Changing patterns of communication among scientists in an era of „Telescience“. Technology in Society, Vol. 12, pp. 457-477.
• Livingstone, S., Lunt, P. (2014). Mediatziation: an emerging paradigm for media and communidation research? In K. Lundby (Ed.): Mediatization of communiation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 703-724.
• Lüthje, C. (2012). Mediatisierte Wissenschaft: eine theoretische Konzeption tiefgreifender Transformationsprozesse. In C. Robertson-von Trotha & J. M. Morcillo (Eds.), Public Science und Neue Medien. Die Rolle der Web 2.0-Kultur in der Wissenschaftsvermittlung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing Verlag, pp. 113-126.
• Lüthje, C. (2014a). Mediatisierte wissenschaftsinterne Kommunikation: Stand der Forschung und theoretische Rahmung. kommunikation@gesellschaft, Vol. 15. Available from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-378465
• Lüthje, C. (2014b). Medienwandel und Wissenschaft: Feldspezifische Mediatisierung. In M. Löw (Ed.), Vielfalt und Zusammenhalt. Verhandlungen des 36. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bochum und Dortmund 2012 (CD-ROM). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
• Lüthje, C. (2015). Medienwandel – soziokultureller Wandel – Wissenschaftswandel: Transformationsfaktoren der internen Wissenschaftskommunikation. In M.S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen, & H. Bonfadelli (Eds.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel. Köln: Halem, pp. 44-67.
• Mainzer, K. (2004) Was sind komplexe Systeme? Komplexitätsforschung als integrative Wissenschaft. Available from http://www.integrative-wissenschaft.de/Archiv/dokumente/Mainzer-14_10_04.pdf
• Mandel, S., Rutishauser, M. & Seiler Schiedt, E. (Eds.) 2010. Digitale Medien für Lehre und Foschung. Münster: Waxmann.
• Matzat, U. (2004). Academic communication and Internet Discussion Groups: transfer of information or creation of social contacts? Social Networks, Vol. 26(3), pp. 221-255.
• Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, Vol. 159, pp. 59-63.
• Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Information Services & Use, 31, 61-83. doi: 10.3233/ISU-2011-0623
• Nielsen, K. H. (2012). Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s1191-012-9475-3
• Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the dim future of the university. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 270, pp. 247-249.
• Noonan, C. F., Stratton, K. (2015). Improving scientific communication and publication output in a multidisciplinary laboratory: Changing culture through staff development workshops. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. doi: 978-1-4799-3374-7/15
• Pansegrau, P., Taubert, N., Weingart, P. (2011). Wissenschaftskommunikation in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung. Berlin: Deutscher Fachjournalistenverlag.
• Voigt, K. (2012). Informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation und Social Media. Berlin: Frank&Timme.
• Papilloud, C. (2003). Bourdieu lesen. Einführung in eine Soziologie des Unterschieds. Bielefeld: Transcript.
• Petersen, A. C. (2006). Simulating Nature. A philosophical study of computer-simulation uncertatinties and their role in climate science and policy advice. Apeldoorn – Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
• Procter, R., William, R., James, S. (2010). If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. Research Information Network RIN. Available from http://rinarchive.jisc-collections.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
• Ruttimann, J. (2006). 2020 computing: Milestones in scientific computing. Nature, Vol. 440, pp. 399-405.
• Schäfer, M. S. (2014). The media in the labs, and the labs in the media. What we know about the mediatization of science. In K. Lundby (Ed.): Mediatization of communication. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 571-594.
• Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, Vol. 19(1), pp. 87-101.
• Stehr, N., von Storch, H. (2010). Climate and society. Climate as resource, climate as risk. Singapur: World Scientific Publishing.
• Strombäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 13(3), pp. 228-246.
• Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. (2014a). Acedemia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23038
• Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. (2014b). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communication, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23236
• Tuire, P., Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Education, Vol. 42, pp. 493–513.
• Voigt, K. (2012). Informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation und Social Media. Berlin. Frank&Timme.
• von Storch, H. (1996). Fragen der Klimaforschung an die Kultur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaften. In Klima- Umwelt – Gesellschaft. Ein interdisziplinäres Seminar der Universität Hamburg am 16./17. November 1995 im Haus Rissen. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg.
• Walsh, J. P., Bayma, T. (1996). Computer Networks and Scientific Work. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26(3), pp. 661–703.
• Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/ms.2017.1.45