Medialization of Research Policy

Abstract

This article researches the medialization of research policy in Germany. The concept of medialization focuses on adaptation processes by the micro (individuals), meso (organizations), and macro levels (social systems) of society to the logic of (mostly journalistic) mass media. Below, the focus lies on how decision makers in the field of research policy perceive the journalistic logic as well as adaptation processes to this logic in their fields of expertise and their organizations. The study is based on 35 semistandardized interviews with stakeholders in organizations from politics, science, and research funding.

Keywords

medialization research policy qualitative analysis science journalism

Introduction

This article deals with the medialization of research policy and focuses on adaptation processes to the logic of (mostly journalistic) mass media by stakeholders within the field, as well as concerning structures of organizations. We regard medialization as adaptation of various social fields, organizations, and individuals to the logic of mostly journalistic mass media (cf. Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2010; Meyen, 2009; Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, & Volpers, 2013). Medialization is indicated by a rise in the importance of mass media in contemporary society (Meyen, 2009) in which mass media influence social change (Imhof, 2006). Social systems, structures, and constellations of actors are objects of medialization (Donges, 2008). Adaptations to “media logic” (Altheide, 2013; Altheide & Snow, 1979), on one hand, might provide new opportunities for individual and collective actors, such as easy access to media publicity (Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2010), but on the other hand, they entail risks (cf. Imhof, 2006; Kepplinger, 2002; Meyer, 2001; Weingart, 2001, 2012) and might even change core functionalities of social systems. For example, the adaptation to media logic of German politicians may contribute to a growing distrust regarding the efficiency of politicians in Germany and the notion that “politicians talk more than they act” (Kepplinger, 2002, p. 984). The medialization of science entails the risk that orientation to media logic might replace orientation to truth, for example, “when it becomes more important to publish an article containing ‘sensational news’ rather than to make sure that the news is ‘true’ and recognized as such by the scientific community” (Weingart, 2012, p. 30).

Along with changes in the governance of science and research in Germany (referred to as “new governance of science”), stakeholders within research policy increasingly rely on journalistic mass media in order to observe and influence each other (Scheu, Summ, Volpers, & Blöbaum 2013). By “stakeholders,” we refer to decision makers: actors who are in a position to influence changes in the field of research policy as well as their own organizations, such as members of political parties, university presidents, or heads of department of funding organizations. Below, we analyze how these decision makers from politics, science, and intermediate organizations perceive journalism (anticipation of journalistic logic), as well as how they perceive adaptations of their social fields and organizations.

Theory

Research policy can be regarded as a constellation of actions, a “multistakeholder process” (Crozier, 2007, p. 3) in which collective actors from different social fields interact and pursue their respective particular interests (cf. Benz, 2004; Benz, Kuhlmann, & Sadowski, 2007). The study at hand focuses on collective actors (organizations) that are crucial to the field of research policy in the political field (political parties, political advisory boards), the scientific field (universities and nonuniversity research institutes), and in-between those fields (funding organizations, research institutions of political ministries). Organizations are key research objects with respect to medialization, because on one hand, they advance, implement, and consolidate adaptations structurally, and on the other, they represent the logic of their social system. Our levers for researching organizations are decision makers within organizations—they not only are experts on their organizations but also closely observe and evaluate changes within their social systems, reflect on the impact of such changes for their organizations, and are responsible for structural adaptation. Therefore, stakeholders within organizations can be regarded as experts of medialization, too.

Recent studies about the medialization of politics (cf. Donges, 2008; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Schulz, 2006; Spörer-Wagner & Marcinkowski, 2010; Vowe, 2006) and science (cf. Ivanova, Schäfer, Schlichting, & Schmidt, 2013; Maeseele, 2007; Marcinkowski, Kohring, Fürst, & Friedrichsmeier, 2014; Peters, Heinrichs, Jung, Kallfass, & Petersen, 2008; Rödder, Franzen, & Weingart, 2012; Schäfer, 2008) show that actors as well as organizational structures in both fields adapt to the logic of journalistic mass media. This study regards research policy as a field of action in which actors from different social fields interact. The most important research policy actors can be placed in the fields of politics, science, and in-between. Since studies show that structures within those fields and (collective as well as individual) actors adapt to media logic, we start from the assumption that research policy is medialized, too.

The research literature often addresses dysfunctional aspects of medialization such as the undermining of core functionalities and the loss of autonomy of organizations and social systems (cf. Imhof, 2006; Kepplinger, 2002; Meyer, 2001; Weingart, 2001, 2012). However, from the perspective of differentiation theory, structural adaptations essentially serve to increase the performance of organizations/social systems or at least to fend off external influences. However, studies on medialization rarely discuss the reasons for adaptation to mass media logic. Marcinkowski and Steiner (2010) argue theoretically that by adapting to mass media logic, organizations optimize their access to mass media—especially the service of providing publicity. Because of recent developments within the German research system (e.g., increasingly competitive funding), organizations in the field of research policy have to legitimize themselves more and more by addressing the general public (cf. Marcinkowski et al., 2014). This leads to competition over public visibility, which in turn explains why organizations adapt to mass media logic. Collective actors medialize because they assume that mass media influence other actors. Furthermore, they may be afraid of competitive disadvantages arising from passivity concerning mass media. Medialization can therefore also be regarded as an “influence of presumed media influence” (Cohen, Tsfati, & Sheafer, 2008; Tsfati, Cohen, & Gunther, 2011). Marcinkowski and others assume that science organizations medialize because university decision makers presume that policy stakeholders are strongly oriented toward mass media (Marcinkowski, Kohring, Friedrichsmeier, & Fürst, 2013, p. 273).

We assume that medialization concerns both actions and structures, with both levels determining and enabling each other reciprocally (cf. Bourdieu, 1987; Giddens, 2008; Schimank, 2010). Concerning the level of actions, mass media communication is increasingly being applied as a strategic resource (cf. Scheu, Summ, Volpers, & Blöbaum, 2013). Stakeholders in the field of German research policy attach increasing importance to journalistic mass media and particularly to the national quality press (cf. Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, & Volpers 2013). The potential impact of media coverage ranges from agenda setting to influencing actual decision-making processes (Scheu, Summ, Volpers, & Blöbaum, 2013). In order to optimize the access to journalistic mass media at the action level, organizations adapt structurally to what stakeholders perceive as journalistic logic. According to stakeholder experiences with journalists, their observations of media coverage and experts from the field of science or PR, they decide which journalistic demands they have to meet. The medialization of research policy in Germany can therefore be regarded as adaptation to an anticipated journalistic logic.

The present study uses the terms media logic and journalistic logic according to Altheide and Snow (1979; cf. Altheide, 2013):

In general terms, media logic consists of a form of communication; the process through which media present and transmit information. Elements of this form include the various media and the formats used by this media. Formats consist, in part, of how material is organised, the style in which it is presented, the focus of emphasis on particular characteristics of behaviour, and the grammar of media communication. Format becomes a framework or a perspective that is used to present as well as interpret phenomena. [. . .] Thus, the logic of media formats has become so taken for granted by both communicator and receiver that it has been overlooked as an important factor of understanding media. (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 10)

The term thus focuses on the institutional and technological “modus operandi” of mass media, “including the ways in which media distribute material and symbolic resources and operate with the help of formal and informal rules” (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 113). Journalistic logic includes commercial imperatives that can guide the selection or presentation of topics, in order to maximize the reach of media outlets, as well as normative demands oriented toward ideals of enlightenment, democracy, or social responsibility (cf. Landerer, 2013; Schatz & Nieland, 2004). Journalistic products can be classified between these poles.

Critics (e.g., Dahlgren, 1996; Hepp, 2012; Lundby, 2009) doubt the concept of media logic, highlight the diversity of different media formats, and sometimes even reject the term completely. Contrary to such arguments, we adopt the position that different media formats—despite the inevitable distinctions—share elements of a common logic; for example, considering the selection (e.g., negativity) or presentation of news (e.g., emotionalization; cf. also Strömbäck et al., 2011; Takens, van Atteveldt, van Hoof, & Kleinnijenhuis, 2013). We assume a “lowest common denominator” of media logic because all kinds of mass media attempt to access public discourses, gain attention, and reach audiences. Additionally, even if stakeholders reflect differences of varying media types, formats, and outlets, organizational adaptations can hardly consider such subtle distinctions but—in order to be most efficient—have to address the basic demands of a broad variety of mass media.

The study at hand prefers the narrower term of journalistic logic to media logic. This is due to results from previous studies that show that stakeholders in German research policy are strongly oriented toward journalistic media, particularly national newspapers, TV news, and the regional press (cf. Scheu, Summ, Volpers, & Blöbaum, 2013, p. 312). Even though it can be assumed theoretically that other types of mass media in the Internet or hybrids between mass communication and individual communication, such as Facebook and Twitter, share a lowest common denominator with journalistic mass media, these newer forms of communication are not considered very relevant by stakeholders of German research policy (Scheu, Volpers, Summ, & Blöbaum, 2014). The medialization of research policy in Germany primarily means the adaptation to anticipated journalistic logic. This study therefore deals with core aspects of journalistic logic as perceived and anticipated by German research policy stakeholders. The focus lies not on the actual operating mode of journalism but on journalism as the horizon of orientation of stakeholders within German research policy.

Medialization means that organizations adapt structurally to this orientation horizon. The level of structures can be divided analytically into constellations of actors, expectations, and interpretations (cf. Schimank, 2007). In short, constellations of actors describe the relative positions of actors within the field; structures of expectations consist of organizational structures, norms, roles, or institutions; and structures of interpretations integrate basic categories of perception and interpretation of social reality, as well as commonly accepted stocks of knowledge. The medialization of German research policy can be investigated in terms of these structural levels.

Constellations of actors of research policy are medialized when the constellation of actors (e.g., access to the decision-making processes of new actors, such as student organizations or nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]) or when the position and influences of actors (e.g., increased influence of previously minor actors, empowerment of prominent individual actors) change, due to mass media. In this regard, studies reveal the strengthening of NGOs in the field of German media policy (cf. Wendelin & Löblich, 2013) and a power shift in favor of prominent politicians in the context of party politics or political elections (cf. Schulz, 2006). This study investigates such changes of the constellation of actors in German research policy.

A medialization of structures of expectations is indicated by mass media–related changes in formal and informal norms (e.g., norm to inform the general public), regulations (e.g., obligation to obtain approval to do interviews with journalists), roles (e.g., integration of media skills in job profiles of decision makers), programs (e.g., integration of demands for scientific communication by research funding organizations), institutions (e.g., popularization of scientific journals), or the structure of organizations (e.g., extension of PR departments). Finally, the medialization of structures of interpretations means that organizations and individual actors adapt their objectives, motives, practical knowledge (cognitive orientation), or judgment criteria (evaluative orientation) to the operative logic of journalism.

In summary, the current study regards medialization as adaptation to the operative logic of journalism—as anticipated by stakeholders. The study investigates how different research policy stakeholders perceive journalistic logic and what adaptations to this logic they observe in German research policy as a whole and in the organizations they represent (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Analytical categories.

Research Design

The study relies on data from a research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The project investigated the influence of journalism on actors and decision-making processes in German research policy, by combining standardized content analysis of media coverage about research and research policy and semistandardized interviews with different stakeholders (cf. Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, & Volpers, 2012). The results of the study refer specifically to 35 interviews with stakeholders from major organizations in the field of research policy.

Stakeholders in organizations are experts and keen observers of decision-making processes, structures, and changes in their fields of expertise. What is more, processes of medialization are influenced substantially by the actions of both individual and collective actors.

Sample

The selection of interviewees (see Figure 2) was conducted in three steps: First, we identified organizations from different social fields that are most relevant considering research policy decisions. As described above, we assume that research policy decisions are the result of complex interactions between political and research organizations as well as organizations in-between those fields. Second, we identified the most relevant organizations within those three fields. Third, we contacted stakeholders or decision makers working at the identified organizations. On one hand, the interviewees have been interviewed as experts of their organizations and research policy processes. Experts can provide information about structures, processes, roles, normative demands, and current structural changes within their fields of expertise. On the other hand, the selected decision makers were interviewed as subjects of medialization, that is, as individual actors who anticipate journalistic logic and promote structural adaptions within their organizations.

Figure 2.

Selection of organizations and interviewees.

We identified political parties and counseling organizations such as the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment as well as the Council of Science and Humanities as the most relevant political organizations in the field of policy. The interviewees are members of the German parliament of all political parties represented (CDU, SPD, FDP, and Die Linke) except Die Grünen, who rejected our interview requests. The selected interviewees are responsible for the issue “research.” Some of these interviewees also hold leading positions in the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment. We also interviewed a high-ranking member of the Council of Science and Humanities. The sample of interviewees from politics contains members of the most relevant political organizations in the field of research policy and represents the whole variety of political government in Germany.

Considering the field of research, the study deals with universities, nonacademic research organizations, and disciplinary associations. The selection criteria for particular organizations in the field of research inlude the relative importance within the field as well as distribution among the social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, life sciences, and engineering sciences. The study focuses on the most relevant German academic and nonacademic research locations representing all academic traditions as well as two disciplinary associations for each academic tradition (social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, life sciences, and engineering sciences). Our aim was to cover the most relevant research organizations (reputable universities and nonacademic research organizations) with importance in research policy processes. Representatives of disciplinary associations have been interviewed in order to include a more scientific perspective, too, and investigate if and how individual researchers and disciplines are part of the medialization of research policy.

The third type of organizations selected can be placed in-between politics and research: research funding organizations and departmental research organizations (research organizations that are associated with political ministries or departments). These organizations influence political decision-making processes and moderate between political and scientific actors. Departmental research organizations offer applicable results—results that serve as basis for political decisions—and they counsel political actors. We selected departmental research organizations from all academic traditions. Research funding organizations actively shape the field of research. Recent developments in Germany, such as an increasing dependency of all research organizations on competitive allocation procedures, further strengthen the position of funding organizations within the constellation of research policy. The study considers three major funding organizations in Germany (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Research Foundation, Volkswagenstiftung). All of the selected funding organizations cover research projects associated with disciplines from all of the academic traditions mentioned above.

Interviews

The interviewees are decision makers within the organizational structures of the selected organizations: presidents, vice presidents, directors, members of management, board members, heads of department, and members of parliament. Semistandardized interviews¹ were conducted between May 2012 and March 2013, mainly by phone, and took 43 minutes on average. The interview guidelines have been constructed to cover the analytical categories summarized in Figure 1. The interview guidelines have been adapted to every interviewee individually. Hereby, we relied on information about the organizations and interviewees available online. We also profited from a standardized content analysis of media coverage about research and research policy that was part of the project (Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, & Volpers, 2012). Results helped specify questions, point out contradictions, and ask interviewees about particular public statements and discussions in the field of research policy that have been covered by mass media.

Because of the complexity of the topic and because interviews with decision makers demand for a relatively high amount of preparation and investigation (cf. Blöbaum, Nölleke, Scheu 2014 [in print]), we decided to have all interviews conducted by one researcher with experience in both qualitative interviews and the field of study. The interviews have been recorded and filed as mp3 files. Student assistants transcribed the audio files. The transcripts have been analyzed using the software atlas.ti. We used analytical categories derived from theory that have been complemented inductively (cf. Figure 1). The first step of the qualitative analysis was conducted by two researchers. First, the researchers identified relevant text passages and arranged them according to the analytical categories. Relevant passages that did not fit any of the analytical categories were collected separately. Every transcript was coded this way independently by both researchers. The researchers then discussed the identified passages, assigned them to the analytical categories, and inductively developed new categories for the nonfitting passages. The second step of the qualitative analysis consisted of summarizing results for all analytical categories by considering commonalities and differences between interviewees. On this basis, the whole research team discussed and interpreted the results in a final step according to our theoretical approach.

Anticipation of Journalistic Logic

The presentation of results follows the order of analytical categories (Figure 1). This section covers the anticipation of journalistic logic by decision makers within the field of research policy (Figure 3); the section “Medialization” deals with adaptations to journalistic logic. Even though the anticipations of journalistic logic summarized below reflect the subjective perceptions of our respondents, they correspond with findings from journalism and particularly news values research (cf. Badenschier & Wormer 2012) in many ways.

Figure 3.

Main elements of anticipated journalistic logic.

Structures of Journalism and Journalistic Actors

The interviewees observe journalistic mass media as being torn between commercial and normative imperatives (cf. also Landerer, 2013). Recently, the respondents have perceived a shift toward commercial constraints. Media organizations are regarded as economic enterprises that try to “sell their products”² (member of management board, nonacademic research organization). Economic pressure and increased competition due to recent developments in the German media system led to intensified efforts to expand audiences and generally to orient toward target groups. This development seems fueled by “massive structural problems” (university president) confronting the German mass media system. The respondents regard Internet and online news sites as the main reason for these problems. Accordingly, “conventional news coverage is coming under pressure” (member of management board, nonacademic research organization). This pressure is being passed over to the scientific field: “The transfer of information to newspapers and other media outlets is accelerating dramatically” (president, departmental research organization).

At the same time, the interviewed stakeholders observe that journalists often try to fulfill a social task (e.g., watchdog, enlightenment). However, this is where they regard journalism as failing more often than not. Even though individual journalists and media outlets seem to be committed to societal needs and try to act responsibly, a large majority of respondents perceives great discrepancies between such ideals and the economic demands or expectations of target groups. In this regard, a member of the Council of Science and Humanities talks about the gap between education and entertainment:

Media outlets have to be sold. [. . .] While watching news, people want to be entertained and not to be educated. And while entertaining people, journalists have to somehow fit in their educational messages.

In order to survive in a highly competitive and accelerating market, mass media organizations, as well as individual journalists, need to adapt to the needs of their audiences and in turn neglect more traditional journalistic ideals, at least to some extent. This trend affects different media outlets in different ways, and respondents regard the national quality press to be the least affected. “There is a quality gap within the media market” (vice president of research, university). An interviewee from the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment explains,

On the one hand, we have national papers like the SZ, FAZ, and particularly Die Zeit, which offer good specialized journalism. Due to their working conditions and contracts, the journalists there have the opportunity for in-depth research and thorough coverage. They also have an audience that is interested in extensive articles.

What is more, respondents regard journalism as strongly dependent on “editorial offices and publishing houses,” which are oriented toward audiences and headlines. Thus, media coverage “does not always reflect the real significance of issues” (member of parliament, SPD). Furthermore, planned cuts in media organizations lead to changes in their staff structure, and particularly to an increase in freelance journalists. Associated with this trend, it is getting difficult to establish long-lasting relations to certain journalists that become experts in the field of research policy. Instead, policy and science decision makers “more and more often have to adapt to different journalists every time you work with media” (university president). From the perspective of the interviewees, this trend strengthens the commercial orientation of editors that is required by media organizations: “Freelancers, of course, are only able to write what they can sell, because they have to earn a living” (manager, nonacademic research organization).

Journalistic Practices

With regard to journalistic practices, respondent comments to some extent reflect aspects of journalistic research and production. However, they strongly focus on the selection and presentation of journalistic content.

Considering research and production, respondents most often broach the issue of time pressure:

Time pressure leads to problems. Research intensity—particularly in online journalism—has decreased dramatically. The result is that articles get published that otherwise, taking quality as a benchmark, should never have been printed. (President, departmental research organization)

The “increasing acceleration [. . .] is incompatible [. . .] with thorough and independent research” (director of nonacademic research organization). The vice president of a disciplinary association reports that he more and more frequently receives requests for statements or comments that are labeled “Due tomorrow!” Such requests are regarded as suspect: “This is not how decent journalism should be.” Many journalists seem to know beforehand what they want to get across and “afterwards are looking for people who confirm their thesis” (director of nonacademic research organization). Sometimes, journalists “need certain opinions” (manager of nonacademic research organization) or need statements that “enforce their own argument” (director, nonacademic research organization). Here too, the quality press is being described as a commendable and notable exception. Also due to time pressure, respondents claim that media coverage often refers to scientific “experts” who are not qualified. The president of a departmental research organization reports that he repeatedly complains to editorial offices about citing unqualified so-called experts. A common answer to his complaints was “Yes, but he always is available when we call!” He adds that colleagues “who are very active in the scientific field” would have little time to correspond with journalists. In this context, the director of another departmental research organization complains that journalists “are sadly less interested in current research, but in short-term background information about recent issues [. . .]. Sometimes, this is just too much. We are no replacement for on-site correspondents.”

From the respondents’ point of view, the selection of issues is above all guided by two motives, audience expansion and an orientation toward specific target groups. This leads to a strong orientation to news values such as negativity, conflict, competition, or unexpectedness. Respondents emphasize the mass media’s preference for controversial and conflict-related issues, sensationalism, and negativity. Media coverage of scientific research additionally seems to be interested in “man-bites-dog stories” (manager of research funding organization). A vice president of a disciplinary association claims that journalists are interested in information that is “unexpected, sensational [. . .] and new to the general public.” A member of the Council of Science and Humanities adds that journalists focus on topics “that are close to the everyday life of people.” Further criteria are simplicity, potential for visualization, and narrative potential. This means that in the opinion of interviewees, comprehensive and simplistic summaries, as well as visual material, increase the chances of publication of scientific and research policy topics. The manager of a nonacademic research organization deduces from discussions with journalists that they are mainly interested in narrative potential—“Journalists have to tell a story”—than in the scientific quality of research. By contrast, only one university president states, “An exciting new idea can’t be replaced by anything else. [. . .] This leads to many citations and references [. . .] in all national media.” In turn, respondents agree that journalistic selection criteria disadvantage complex issues from the fields of research and research policy. Yet they feel that these complex issues are highly relevant and important to the broader public.

Regarding presentation, respondents perceive similar trends to those of selection. They feel that the mass media scandalize issues, “twisting everything around until it comes across as a sensation” (vice president, disciplinary association). The allegation is that journalists highlight negative aspects of a story, simplify some things, and exaggerate others, as well as attempt to provide vivid explanations of rather dry and difficult research projects. Here too, the narrative potential is important. According to the interviewees, journalists try to tell a dramatic story. The departmental manager of a research funding organization compares a national funding program in Germany (“Exzellenzinitiative”) to a sports event: “It’s like the European soccer tournament. You’ve got drama, winners, and losers. You hope for scandals.” Furthermore, respondents observe that journalists contrive protagonists and antagonists, exaggerate conflicts, and dramatize decision-making processes. Linked to this alignment at the commercial pole of journalistic logic, respondents recognize the threat of journalists “exaggerating, distorting, or simply misinterpreting issues” (president, departmental research organization). Some journalists allegedly even deliberately alter facts to tell a better story (vice president, disciplinary association).

Interviewees stress that their perceptions of journalism are subjective. They generally refer to their own experiences with journalists and editorial offices, as well as observations and analysis of media coverage about research and research policy, in order to justify their statements about journalism. Many respondents also report that they actively obtain information about the operational logic of journalism from PR experts within their organization, scientific experts, or scientific studies:

Of course there are many studies [. . .]. I know a very interesting study about the dependencies of mass media—for example advertising. [. . .] I personally get important information about mass media from professors who deal with this issue. (Manager, nonacademic research organization)

Medialization

The constellation of research policy (constellation of actors), as well as organizations and individual stakeholders (structures of expectations and interpretations) is medialized (see Figure 4). That is, the relative positions of actors and the structures of organizations and the cognitive as well as evaluative orientations adapt to what stakeholders anticipate as journalistic logic.

Figure 4.

Characteristics of the medialization of research policy.

Medialization of the Constellation of Actors

With regard to the constellation of actors, the respondents observe a slight shift in the positions of actors within the constellation. Nonetheless, the classic organizations in Germany are still regarded as the most relevant players in the field. The most frequently mentioned are federal and state government, advisory organizations (Council of Science and Humanities, Expert Commission on Research and Innovation), funding organizations (German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research), academic organizations (universities, German Rectors’ Conference), and nonacademic organizations (Fraunhofer, Helmholtz Association, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association). However, the constellation as a whole has changed. First of all, this applies to actors from the field of journalism. The importance of journalism to mediate information between different social fields increased (cf. Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2010). Respondents claim that “networking within the press sector” (vice president, university) is very important, especially for people at higher levels of the hierarchy. Journalists are considered “critical, benevolent, investigative, and educational companions” (vice president, university) of research policy processes and partners who can help advance one’s aims and objectives (cf. Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, Volpers. 2013). The medialization of the constellation of research policy actors strengthens the position of journalists and mass media outlets within this constellation. What is more, some interviewees (particularly from departmental research organizations) claim that journalism often helps them perform their various tasks and duties:

This is the reason for the strong connection between our department and the media. It is our job to prevent crises before they occur. By placing statements in the right places, we can prevent crises from spreading. (President, departmental research organization)

Moreover, the respondents also perceive a strengthening of the position of universities and nonacademic research organizations compared to political stakeholders. They connect this shift of the positions of actors to medialization. Respondents from the field of science—who are traditionally relatively dependent on political decisions—often claim that adaptations to journalistic logic enhance their position within the constellation of research policy. Adaptation increases their influence in negotiations with political actors (cf. also Spörer-Wagner & Marcinkowski, 2010), yields competitive advantages over other scientific organizations, and enables them to indirectly influence decision-making processes via mass media. In this context, Marcinkowski et al. (2013) have shown that science organizations medialize in order to increase acceptance among science policy stakeholders.

From the perspective of stakeholders from political parties and funding organizations, access to journalistic media also leads to a slight redistribution of power and influence within the constellation (cf. also Imhof, 2006; Wendelin & Löblich, 2013). Beside research organizations, especially NGOs, religious groups, and student organizations benefit from medialization. In this regard, the vice president of a university reports that students recently used media attention to get their agenda discussed in university committees, “in the academic senate, at university events, and now it is being submitted to the ministry.” In this context, the president of a departmental research organization is not happy that instead of his organization “an NGO with relatively few experts, who don’t have the best reputation, gets cited one-to-one” and is thus able to influence public discourse and policy.

It seems that particularly rather less powerful and influential actors profit from medialization and are able to improve their position within the constellation.

Medialization of Structures of Expectations

Most changes are witnessed with respect to structures of expectations. Most important, almost all respondents claim that the competence profile of stakeholders now includes handling journalism and the media (cf. also Peters, Heinrichs, et al., 2008, p. 275):

In order to manage an organization like this responsibly, of course you have to accept certain facts. And today it is a fact that if you don’t appear [in the media], you don’t exist at all. (University president)

In this context, political actors can be regarded as pioneers. Handling the media and, accordingly, strategies of adaptation to journalistic logic are a reality to interviewees from the field of policy (cf. also Donges, 2008; Schulz, 2006). The most recent changes due to medialization are therefore being linked more to science and research funding than to politics.

Respondents perceive an increase in the normative value of communicating to the public within the sciences. Accordingly, scientists are now far more eager “to get their points across” and to access journalistic media “compared to 30 years ago” (university president). “By now, probably associated with a generation shift, we observe more and more conscious efforts from within the university to address the city, the state and the people” (vice president, university).

The manager of a nonacademic research organization confirms that their internal media policy was adjusted to this trend. From the point of view of a university president, individual scientists have learned over time that such organizational changes are in their own best interests. Considering adaptations of organizational structures, almost all respondents talk about the professionalization of media monitoring and the extension of public relations departments. In this regard, stakeholders from disciplinary associations feel that they have considerable catching up to do. However, they mostly lack the necessary resources to implement structural changes. What is more, the internal differentiation of organizations is also adjusted to the anticipated demands of journalism. In this regard, the manager of a nonacademic research organization reports on efforts to establish internal fields of competence. When public discourses occur that are related to scientific disciplines (e.g., nanotechnology, Arab Spring, etc.) or even in cases of disasters such as earthquakes, journalists should thus be able to quickly identify scholars within the disciplines that can provide studies and expertise. Respondents acknowledge the increased importance of proactive media relations in phases of high media attention (cf. also Rödder & Schäfer, 2010). Such structural adaptations can also be interpreted as a reaction to the perceived increase of time pressure in journalism. In this context, the president of a disciplinary association talks about a “sleeping task force” and “lists of specialists for certain issues” in order to provide quick and informed statements for journalists. According to respondents, such proactive and fast reactions to emerging news stories that are related to their own scientific disciplines could improve the visibility, reputation, and image of the discipline.

Internal workflows are also medialized. Actors in the field of research policy establish communication processes in order to “meet journalists halfway,” anticipating the needs of journalists (particularly journalistic practices) summarized above. For example, this includes the simplification of complex issues and the production of clear, exciting, personalized, and visualized messages: “Within our realms of possibility, we try everything to break down abstract and difficult [research policy] topics and to prepare and edit them for public reception” (member of German Council of Science and Humanities). All respondents acknowledge such adaptations regarding their way of communicating with the public. Here they strongly orient toward what they anticipate as journalistic logic. Some organizations not only use traditional journalism but also use their websites, social network sites, or Twitter to communicate with the public.

Respondents generally indicate that adaptations to journalistic logic only complement, extend, or protect core functions of their organizations (cf. also Marcinkowski, 2005). That is, from the perspective of most interviewees, adaptations barely affect research procedures, funding decisions, or research policy actions themselves, although there are notable exceptions. For example, the vice president of a university reports that it is presently important to consider “what issues are interesting for journalists and get published in mass media,” when planning academic conferences.

Most respondents believe that adaptations of funding organizations are the widest reaching. Examples are the establishment of awards for public communication efforts or the expansion of funding resources to communicate research results (head of department, research funding organization) and the medialization of entire funding programs:

New funding programs can either be unimpressive or have a mobilization effect that is reflected in the mass media. [. . .] The “Exzellenzinitiative” [Excellence Initiative; competitive national funding program in Germany] is reported in ordinary newspapers because it is connected to the idea of regional competition. [. . .] It triggers a kind of localism when different regions in Germany compete with each other. I think it wise to consider and use this. But to do so, you have to act accordingly even during the planning process of a funding program. (Head of department, research funding organization)

According to the interviewee, such adaptations should lead to more effective funding. The dramatization of allocation processes (as in the “Exzellenzinitiative”) would also benefit applicants who were rejected during reviewing—the point of the interviewee being that even rejected universities benefit from media attention and public visibility by being able to show their relevancy regarding society as a whole and the regional economy. What is more, according to the interviewee, journalistic dramatization pushed regional support for all universities due to the suspense and regional pride that goes with the competitive character of the funding program. In this context, the departmental manager of a research funding organization compared the “Exzellenzinitiative” to a major sports event, the European soccer championship, in which the regional publics support their teams.

Another adaptation aspect concerning structures of expectations lies in the establishment of formal and informal rules or coordination processes, which according to interviewees above all aim at minimizing the negative effects of media coverage. Caution is needed in dealing with media and providing statements (president, disciplinary association). Respondents do not want to “get caught in a trap set by professional journalists” (vice president, university). Respondents think that it is important that there are rules about who talks to the press. You have to prevent “everyone at once turning to the media” and instead ensure “that media activities are properly coordinated” (university president). The vice president of a university summarizes the necessity of regulating media contacts:

I think every university would be well advised to establish an “information policy” or a communications strategy. I believe this is crucial, there just have to be some basic rules [considering media relations].

Medialization of Structures of Interpretations

According to the respondents, the medialization of structures of interpretations is much less common and far-reaching than the medialization of the constellation of actors and structures of expectations. In this category, adaptations mostly concern cognitive orientations. Background knowledge about journalism is becoming increasingly important for stakeholders in research policy, science, and funding organizations—“You just have to know what makes the mass media tick” (president, departmental research organization). In order to extend their knowledge, stakeholders obtain information from scientific experts, ask internal media experts for advice, and organize practical media training and further education programs for executives and staff.

From the perspective of medialization theory, the transformation of evaluative orientations seems much more problematic than the adaptation of cognitive orientations mentioned above (cf. Weingart, 2006). In this study, respondents indeed talk about adaptations of evaluative orientations. However, there seems to be some kind of third-person effect concerning medialization processes—respondents rate the media orientation of actors from other fields much higher than their own. Considering their own fields, respondents describe adaptations to journalistic logic as additional criteria that do not change classic decision-making processes. For example, stakeholders in funding organizations report that positive media coverage of funded research projects is regarded as an indicator of success. However, this criterion is far less important than other factors. The head of the department of a funding organization gets straight to the point: “Even though some people might be able to convince the media that bad research is in fact good, it remains bad. And we don’t fund bad research.” A member of the German Council of Science and Humanities confirms that “quality management is vital.” According to the respondent, research quality is above all still proven by publications in highly ranked scientific journals and not by media coverage. This seems true for research policy decisions in general. A member of the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment explains, “You have to adapt to media logic without violating your own criteria.”

However, some respondents indicate that this ideal could not always be achieved. Actors from research and funding organizations describe far-reaching adaptations to journalistic logic when talking about policy organizations: “Actors in the field of politics strongly orient towards the media” (director, departmental research organization). Respondents explain this with the agenda-setting function of mass media: “Some issues are pushed by the media and politicians then have to act accordingly” (university president). Thereby, politicians temporarily “support certain fields of research such as electromobility” (member of Council of Science and Humanities). A representative survey of decision makers in universities confirms this finding and shows that university decision makers perceive a very strong orientation to mass media of science policy stakeholders (Marcinkowski et al., 2013).

What is more, some stakeholders from the fields of policy and research suspect that funding organizations select research projects according to their attractiveness to the mass media. For example, a university president complains that funding organizations do not necessarily support the most promising projects but rather “put their money into ‘sexy’ [projects]. A fundamental question that arises is whether the appropriate incentives are in place.” Such adaptations of core processes are potentially dysfunctional.

Examples of dysfunctional aspects can also be identified in the field of science. The perceived relevancy of media publicity of scientists leads to an orientation to journalistic logic considering the presentation of scientific results and even the decision to research certain topics (Marcinkowski et al., 2013). Here, some respondents recognize “black sheep” (vice president, university): According to respondents, some scientists adjust their research far too much to the demands of mass media in order to get funding. These scientists could even “discredit [a whole discipline] in interdisciplinary and political contexts” (university president). The vice president of a university fears that “this trend rubs off on the field of science, leading to scientists trying to make their work look increasingly spectacular.” In addition, the managing director of a departmental research organization self-critically suspects,

If I have to decide between two research projects, of which one would be more attractive to the public—this might influence my decision. Then I would probably tell myself: “Choose the one that has more sex appeal.” This can be seen as an external influence. You want attention and recognition.

All respondents regard such tendencies and phenomena as dysfunctional. Interviewees indicate that the institutionalization of processes, adaptations of structures of expectations, and the extension of knowledge of mass media are implemented in order to prevent such fundamentally undesirable changes and transformations of the operative logics of the respective organizations. This development fits with the observation of Göpfert (2007, p. 215) of a “strengthening of public relations” in German science communication. Regulations (e.g., obligation to obtain approval to do interviews with journalists), the integration of media skills in job profiles of decision makers, or the extension of PR departments in organizations serve to release individual actors (cf. Peters et al., 2013), to increase positive and minimize negative effects of media coverage (cf. Peters, Brossard, et al., 2008), and to immunize core processes of organizations. Decision makers in politics, science, and funding organizations agree that they all can profit from medialization (e.g., visibility, reputation, legitimization, etc.) but in the end have to act according to their own internal logic. Respondents indicate that research policy decisions, funding decisions, or scientific research should be made independently from what they perceive as journalistic logic. Ironically, respondents indicate that the adaptations to journalistic logic considering structures of expectations mentioned above can help prevent the medialization of core functionalities and the basic operative logics of their organizations.

Summary and Conclusion

This article investigated how actors in the constellation of research policy perceive journalistic logic and the extent to which organizations adapt to this anticipated logic. An analysis of 35 semistandardized interviews reveals that stakeholders in the constellation share similar views of the priorities of journalistic mass media, of how journalists and media organizations work, and of the external demands and pressures on journalism. Doubts about the concept of a common media logic shared by all journalistic media (e.g., Dahlgren, 1996; Hepp, 2012; Lundby, 2009) do not seem justified, considering the perceptions of decision makers in the field of German research policy. Apparently, respondents recognize an increasing orientation of journalists and media organizations toward commercial imperatives (cf. Landerer, 2013). They believe this leads to problematic developments, specifically the selection and presentation of news that does not favor an adequate and thorough coverage of complex but nevertheless socially important research policy issues. The anticipation of journalistic selection criteria and presentation of research policy issues of the respondents differfrom findings of a content analysis that we conducted in the context of a research project. In our content analysis (Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ, & Volpers, 2013), we have not been able to detect a bias toward negativity, conflict, dramatization, or sensationalism that the respondents perceive. Apparently, negative experiences more than neutral or positive experiences with journalists shape how the respondents perceive journalism.

Organizations react to their perceptions of journalism and the mass media. Changes due to medialization are observed with regard to the constellation of actors, structures of expectations, and structures of interpretations. Journalists are considered partners within the constellation of research policy who critically observe decision-making processes and can sometimes be relied on to push forward one’s own objectives. Regarding structures of expectations, the respondents describe adaptations to the organizational and the individual level that serve to optimize access to journalistic mass media and at the same time to immunize core processes of their organizations against journalistic logic. Respondents claim that norms, rules, and organizational structures have been and still are being extended to meet the demands of journalism (cf. also Franzen, Rödder, & Weingart, 2012). Such adaptations also serve to protect structures of interpretations. Structures of interpretations are considered as far less affected by medialization. In this respect, respondents recognize only that background knowledge about journalism and media organizations has become more and more important as a cognitive benchmark. Adaptations of evaluative orientations, motives and objectives of organizations and individual stakeholders are generally regarded as dysfunctional exceptions. Stakeholders from policy, science, and funding perceive rather marginal influences of medialization on the core functions of their own organizations (cf. also Donges, 2008; Rödder & Schäfer, 2010) but do identify such influences on actors from the respective other fields.

All in all, adaptations to (anticipated) journalistic logic are being considered regularly and established deliberately in order to increase performance (cf. also Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2010), to improve an organization’s position compared to competitors, and to protect structures of interpretations.

The study shows that medialization should be considered as a relevant contextual condition of research policy in Germany. However, the study also sheds light on some methodological challenges. First of all, it is difficult to investigate ongoing processes of transformation, such as medialization. While the subjective statements of stakeholders certainly yield valuable insights into medialization, the respondents are part of the transformation process at the same time. Even though the interview data often indirectly indicate individual adaptations, it is doubtful whether individuals are able to analyze from the outside the complex process of medialization (of which they are part). It would therefore be worthwhile to complement and validate the data presented above using other sources (e.g., archival data) and methods (e.g., standardized surveys). Archival data such as protocols, minutes of meetings, or documents about organizational structures (e.g., organization charts) from different time periods could be used to further research adaptations to journalistic logic. Representative surveys of decision makers in organizations from politics, science, and in-between could be used to validate the results about the shared elements of anticipated journalistic logic and adaptations.

Nevertheless, the theoretical and methodical framework of the study proved useful for investigating the medialization of organizations within the German research policy constellation. The study identified various effects of medialization on different structural levels and linked these effects to how stakeholders in organizations anticipate journalistic logic. Future research on the medialization of research policy will have to face the challenge of evaluating the intensity, direction, and extent of complex interdependencies involving different elements of medialization and between individual stakeholders, organizations, and social systems.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [German Federal Ministry of Education and Research], grant number: 01UZ1006.

Notes

Author Biographies

Andreas M. Scheu studied communication studies, sociology, and philosophy at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich. After finishing his PhD on the history of theories of communication studies, he started a postdoctoral position at the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster. There he coordinated a research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research on the role of journalistic media in German research policy. He now deals with mediatization, science communication, and qualitative methodology.

Anna-Maria Volpers studied communication studies, art history, and public law at the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster. She worked for a research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research on the role of journalistic media in German research policy. Her fields of research are science communication, journalism studies, and visual communication. She is now working on a PhD project on the dynamics of media frames at the University of Münster.

Annika Summ studied communication studies, sociology, and politics at the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster. She worked for different research projects in the field of journalism studies and on the role of journalistic media in German research policy. After finishing her PhD on freelance journalists in German TV stations, she now coordinates the training editorial office at the University of Münster.

Bernd Blöbaum is a professor of communication studies at the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster. He lectured at several universities, including Bamberg University and Hamburg University. He completed projects on the changes in journalism in Germany since 1990, on scientific evidence in the reporting of news media, and on mediatized constellations of science, media, and politics. He is coordinator of the DFG-Research Training Group “Trust and Communication in a Digitized World.” Recent publications include papers on differentiation of journalism in Germany, science journalists, biographies of media workers, and trust and journalism.

References

Altheide

D. L.

(2013). Media logic, social control, and fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223-238. doi:10.1111/comt.12017

Altheide

D. L.

Snow

R. P.

(1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Blöbaum

Scheu

A. M.

Summ

Volpers

A.-M.

(2012): Science policy in mediatized constellations of politics, science, and media. Studies in Communication / Media, 1(1), 149-165.

Blöbaum

Scheu

A. M.

Summ

Volpers

A.-M.

(2013): Medien, Fächer und Politik. Wie Medien forschungspolitische Entscheidungen in verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen beeinflussen. [Media, disciplines and politics. How media influence research policy decisions in different scientific disciplines.] In Grande

Jansen

Jarren

Rip

Schimank

Weingart

(Eds.), Neue Governance der Wissenschaft. Reorganisation—externe Anforderungen—Medialisierung [New governance of science. Reorganization—external demands—medialization] (pp. 289-309). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag.

Blöbaum

Nölleke

Scheu

A. M.

(2014 [in print]). Das Experteninterview in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. In S. Averbeck-Lietz, & M. Meyen, Handbuch nicht standardisierte Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Handbook of non-standardized methods in communication science] (pp. X-XX). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

Badenschier

Wormer

(2012). Issue selection in science journalism: Towards a special theory of news values for science news? In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Communication to the public and its repercussions (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, pp. 59-85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Benz

(2004). Einleitung: Governance—Modebegriff oder nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept [Introduction: Governance—fashion term or useful concept for the social sciences]. In Benz

(Ed.), Governance—Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung [Governance—Governing in complex regulating systems. An introduction] (pp. 11-28). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

Benz

Kuhlmann

Sadowski

(2007). Governance: A political science perspective. In Jansen

(Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations: Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration (pp. 3-29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Bourdieu

(1987). Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft [Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste]. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

10.

Cohen

Tsfati

Sheafer

(2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics. Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 331-344. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn014

11.

Crozier

(2007). Recursive governance: Contemporary political communication and public policy. Political Communication, 24, 1-18. doi:10.1080/10584600601128382

12.

Dahlgren

(1996). Media logic in cyberspace: Repositioning journalism and its publics. Javnost-The Public, 3(3), 59-72.

13.

Donges

(2008). Medialisierung politischer Organisationen. Parteien in der Mediengesellschaft [Medialization of political organizations. Political parties in the media society]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

14.

Franzen

Rödder

Weingart

(2012). Introduction: Exploring the impact of science communication on scientific knowledge production. In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Communication to the public and its repercussions (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, pp. 3-14). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.

15.

Giddens

(2008). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, England: Polity.

16.

Göpfert

(2007). The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In Bauer

M. W.

Bucchi

(Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 215-226). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Hepp

(2012). Medialization and the “molding force” of the media. Communications, 37, 1-28. doi:10.1515/commun-2012-0001

18.

Hjarvard

(2008). The medialization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29, 105-134. Retrieved from http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/269_hjarvard.pdf

19.

Imhof

(2006). Mediengesellschaft und Medialisierung [Media society and medialization]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 54, 191-215.

20.

Ivanova

Schäfer

M. S.

Schlichting

Schmidt

(2013). Is there a medialization of climate science? Results from a survey of German climate scientists. Science Communication, 35, 626-653. doi:10.1177/1075547012475226

21.

Kepplinger

H. M.

(2002). Medialization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of Communication, 52, 972-986. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02584.x

22.

Landerer

(2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the medialization of politics. Communication Theory, 23, 239-258. doi:10.1111/comt.12013

23.

Lundby

(2009). Media logic: Looking for social interaction. In Lundby

(Ed.), Medialization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 101-122). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

24.

Maeseele

(2007). Science and technology in a mediatized and democratized society. Journal of Science Communication, 61, 1-10. Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/06/01/Jcom0601%282007%29A02/Jcom0601%282007%29A02.pdf

25.

Marcinkowski

(2005). Die “Medialisierbarkeit” politischer Institutionen [The “medializability” of political institutions]. In Rössler

Krotz

(Eds.), Mythen der Mediengesellschaft [The media society and its myths] (pp. 341-369). Konstanz, Germany: UVK.

26.

Marcinkowski

Kohring

Friedrichsmeier

Fürst

(2013). Neue Governance und die Öffentlichkeit der Hochschulen [New governance and the publicity of academia]. In Grande

Jansen

Jarren

Rip

Schimank

Weingart

27.

Marcinkowski

Kohring

Fürst

Friedrichsmeier

(2014). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36, 56-80. doi:10.1177/1075547013494022

28.

Marcinkowski

Steiner

(2010). Was heißt “Medialisierung”? Autonomiebeschränkung oder Ermöglichung von Politik durch Massenmedien? [What is the meaning of “medialization”? Limitation of political autonomy or facilitation of policy by mass media?]. In Arnold

Classen

Kinnebrock

Lersch

Wagner

H.-U.

(Eds.), Von der Politisierung der Medien zur Medialisierung des Politischen? Zum Verhältnis von Medien, Öffentlichkeiten und Politik im 20. Jahrhundert [From the politization of media to the medialization of politics? About the relations of media, publics and politics in the 20th century] (pp. 51-76). Leipzig, Germany: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

29.

Mazzoleni

Schulz

(1999). “Medialization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16, 247-261. doi:10.1080/105846099198613

30.

Meyen

(2009). Medialisierung [Medialization]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57, 23-38.

31.

Meyer

(2001). Mediokratie. Die Kolonisierung der Politik durch das Mediensystem [Mediocracy. The colonialization of politics by the media system]. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

32.

Peters

H. P.

Allgaier

Dunwoody

Y.-Y.

Brossard

Jung

(2013). Medialisierung der Neurowissenschaften. Bedeutung journalistischer Medien für die Wissenschafts-Governance [The medialization of neuro sciences. The relevance of journalistic media for the governance of science]. In Grande

Jansen

Jarren

Rip

Schimank

Weingart

33.

Peters

H. P.

Brossard

de Cheveigné

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

Tsuchida

(2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205.

34.

Peters

H. P.

Heinrichs

Jung

Kallfass

Petersen

(2008). Medialisierung der Wissenschaft als Voraussetzung ihrer Legitimierung und politischer Relevanz [Medialization of science as requirement for legitimization and political relevance]. In Mayntz

Friedhelm

Weingart

Wengenroth

(Eds.), Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer: Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichket [Production of knowledge and transfer of knowledge: Knowledge in the area of tension between science, politics and the public] (pp. 267-292). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag.

35.

Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(2012). The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

36.

Rödder

Schäfer

M. 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

37.

Schäfer

M. S.

(2008). Medialisierung der Wissenschaft? Empirische Untersuchung eines wissenschaftssoziologischen Konzepts [Medialization of science? An empirical study of a scientific concept]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37, 206-225. Retrieved from http://www.zfs-online.org/index.php/zfs/article/viewFile/1272/809

38.

Schatz

Nieland

J.-U.

(2004). Zum Verhältnis von Fernsehen und Politik in Zeiten der Medialisierung politischer Kommunikation [About the relations between television and politics in times of the medialization of political communication]. In Imhof

Blum

Bonfadelli

Jarren

(Eds.), Mediengesellschaft. Strukturen, Merkmale, Entwicklungsdynamiken [Media society, structures, attributes, developmental dynamics] (pp. 376-399). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

39.

Scheu

A. M.

Summ

Volpers

A.-M.

Blöbaum

(2013). Strategische Kommunikation in medialisierten Governance-Konstellationen. Eine exemplarische Annäherung anhand der Forschungspolitik [Strategic communication in medialized governance constellations. An exemplary approach considering research policy]. In Röttger

Gehrau

Preusse

(Eds.), Strategische Kommunikation. Umrisse und Perspektiven eines Forschungsfeldes [Strategic communication. Outlines and perspectives of a field of research] (pp. 303-321). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

40.

Scheu

A. M.

Volpers

A.-M.

Summ

Blöbaum

(2014): Medialisierung von Forschungspolitik. Wahrnehmung von und Anpassung an Medienlogik [Medialization of research policy. Perception of and adaptation to media logic]. In Stark

Quiring

Jackob

(Eds.), Von der Gutenberg-Galaxis zur Google-Galaxis. Alte und neue Grenzvermessungen nach 50 Jahren DGPuK [From the Gutenberg-galaxy to the Google-galaxy. Old and new boundary surveys after 50 years of DGPuK] (pp. 71-93). München, Germany: UVK.

41.

Schimank

(2007). Handeln in Konstellationen: Die reflexive Konstitution von handelndem Zusammenwirken und sozialen Strukturen [Acting in constellations: The reflexive constitution of cooperative actions and social structures]. In Altmeppen

K.-D.

Hanitzsch

Schlüter

(Eds.), Journalismustheorie: Next generation. Soziologische Grundlegung und theoretische Innovation [Theory of journalism: Next generation. Sociological founding and theoretical innovation] (pp. 121-137). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.

42.

Schimank

(2010). Handeln und Strukturen. Einführung in die akteurtheoretische Soziologie [Actions and structures. Introduction to the sociology of actors]. Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.

43.

Schulz

(2006). Medialisierung von Wahlkämpfen und die Folgen für das Wählerverhalten [Medialization of election campaigns and the consequences for the electoral behavior of voters]. In Imhof

Blum

Bonfadelli

Jarren

(Eds.), Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft [Democracy in the media society] (pp. 41-57). Wiesbaden, Geermany: Springer VS.

44.

Spörer-Wagner

Marcinkowski

(2010). Is talk always silver and silence golden? The mediatisation of political bargaining. Javnost-The Public, 17(2), 5-25.

45.

Strömbäck

Negrine

Hopmann

D. N.

Maier

Jalali

Berganza

. . .Róka

(2011). The medialization and framing of European parliamentary election campaigns. In Maier

Strömbäck

Kaid

L. L.

(Eds.), Political communication in European parliamentary elections (pp. 161-174). Farnham, England: Ashgate.

46.

Takens

van Atteveldt

van Hoof

Kleinnijenhuis

(2013). Media logic in election campaign coverage. European Journal of Communication, 28, 277-293. doi:10.1177/0267323113478522

47.

Tsfati

Cohen

Gunther

A. C.

(2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166. doi:10.1177/1075547010380385

48.

Vowe

(2006). Mediatisierung der Politik? Ein theoretischer Ansatz auf dem Prüfstand [Mediatization of politics? A theoretical approach put to test]. Publizistik, 51, 437-455.

49.

Weingart

(2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The moment of truth? About the relations between science, politics, economy, media in the knowledge society]. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

50.

Weingart

(2006). Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit. Essays zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit [The science of the public. Essay about the relations between science media and the public]. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

51.

Weingart

(2012). The lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 17-32). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

52.

Wendelin

Löblich

(2013). Netzpolitik-Aktivismus in Deutschland. Deutungen, Erwartungen und Konstellationen zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure [Internet policy activism in Germany. Interpretations, expectations and constellations of civil society actors]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61, 58-75.