IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i1p1-14..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing interests between freedom and censorship: Organizational strategies for quality assurance in science communication

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt Fecher
  • Freia Kuper
  • Birte Fähnrich
  • Hannah Schmid-Petri
  • Thomas Schildhauer
  • Peter Weingart
  • Holger Wormer

Abstract

While science communication is increasingly being discussed as a third mission alongside research and teaching, there is little research on how universities and research organizations deal with issues regarding the quality of science communication. This article examines, from an organizational perspective, which new forms of quality assurance processes scientific organizations in Germany apply when addressing quality risks for science communication such as exaggeration in press releases or in the online communication of individual faculty members. Six focus group discussions were conducted with 22 participants (rectors or presidents of universities, heads of communication, ombudsmen, and high-impact researchers). Based on the results, proposals were developed to extend central as well as decentral organizational structures to assure good scientific communication practice. Their possible implementation was discussed in a workshop with representatives of all abovementioned groups. In conclusion, recommendations for future institutional policy are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Birte Fähnrich & Hannah Schmid-Petri & Thomas Schildhauer & Peter Weingart & Holger Wormer, 2023. "Balancing interests between freedom and censorship: Organizational strategies for quality assurance in science communication," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:1-14.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Bles, Anne Marthe & van der Liden, Sander & Freeman, Alessandra L. J. & Mitchell, James & Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Spiegelhalter, David J., 2019. "Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers, and science," EMF Research Papers 22, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    2. Gary Schwitzer, 2008. "How Do US Journalists Cover Treatments, Tests, Products, and Procedures? An Evaluation of 500 Stories," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(5), pages 1-5, May.
    3. Marta Entradas & Martin W Bauer & Colm O'Muircheartaigh & Frank Marcinkowski & Asako Okamura & Giuseppe Pellegrini & John Besley & Luisa Massarani & Pedro Russo & Anthony Dudo & Barbara Saracino & Car, 2020. "Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aljoscha Minnich & Hauke Roggenkamp & Andreas Lange, 2023. "Ambiguity Attitudes and Surprises: Experimental Evidence on Communicating New Information within a Large Population Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 10783, CESifo.
    2. Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, August.
    3. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Joseph W Taylor & Marie Long & Elizabeth Ashley & Alex Denning & Beatrice Gout & Kayleigh Hansen & Thomas Huws & Leifa Jennings & Sinead Quinn & Patrick Sarkies & Alex Wojtowicz & Philip M Newton, 2015. "When Medical News Comes from Press Releases—A Case Study of Pancreatic Cancer and Processed Meat," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    6. Amanda Wilson & Billie Bonevski & Alison Jones & David Henry, 2009. "Media Reporting of Health Interventions: Signs of Improvement, but Major Problems Persist," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Mitchell, James & Runge, Johnny, 2019. "Communicating Data Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence for U.K. GDP," EMF Research Papers 30, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    8. Joaquin Chapa & Zeeshan Haq & Adam S. Cifu, 2017. "Comparative analysis of the factors associated with citation and media coverage of clinical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1271-1283, September.
    9. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    11. Tatiana Breder Emerich & Aline Guio Cavaca & Edson Theodoro Santos-Neto & Victor Israel Gentilli & Adauto Emmerich Oliveira, 2017. "Media Valuations of Health Journalism and Health Dynamics in Brazilian Printed Media," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 31-42, January.
    12. Ana Beatriz Galvão & James Mitchell, 2023. "Real‐Time Perceptions of Historical GDP Data Uncertainty," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 457-481, June.
    13. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    14. Michelle Nelson & Jiwoo Park, 2015. "Publicity as Covert Marketing? The Role of Persuasion Knowledge and Ethical Perceptions on Beliefs and Credibility in a Video News Release Story," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 327-341, August.
    15. Carol Nash, 2021. "Challenges to Learners in Interpreting Self as Other, Post COVID-19," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, November.
    16. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    17. Bholat, David & Broughton, Nida & Ter Meer, Janna & Walczak, Eryk, 2019. "Enhancing central bank communications using simple and relatable information," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Mirjana Pejić Bach & Cristina M. Pulido & Dalia Suša Vugec & Vladia Ionescu & Gisela Redondo-Sama & Laura Ruiz-Eugenio, 2020. "Fostering Social Project Impact with Twitter: Current Usage and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, August.
    19. Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Mitchell, James, 2019. "Measuring Data Uncertainty : An Application using the Bank of England’s “Fan Charts” for Historical GDP Growth," EMF Research Papers 24, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    20. Luca Iaboli & Luana Caselli & Angelina Filice & Gianpaolo Russi & Eleonora Belletti, 2010. "The Unbearable Lightness of Health Science Reporting: A Week Examining Italian Print Media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-6, March.
    21. Robin Gregory & Theresa Satterfield & David R. Boyd, 2020. "People, Pipelines, and Probabilities: Clarifying Significance and Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 218-226, February.
    22. Celia Andreu-Sánchez & Miguel Ángel Martín-Pascual, 2022. "Scientific illustrations of SARS-CoV-2 in the media: An imagedemic on screens," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:1-14.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.