In our talk we will present the results of empirical case studies and interviews we conducted on science blogs on the one hand and science videos on the other hand. Drawing on the boundary-work-approach we analyze how these formats reconstruct images of as well as boundaries between of good, bad and non-science. As a result, we can distinguish prominent similarities and differences in respect to the enactment of "scientificity" contrasting both formats. Likewise, similarities and differences according to the respectively imagined audiences can be defined. Remarkably, various cases in both formats display an uncritical and affirmative relatedness to science. This relatedness leads to emotional and positive role models, i.e. of "doing science" and "observing science".

Potentially existing restraining forces, limitations and boundaries seem to be not important.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

„Doing Science“ - Constructing Scientificity on Social Media

Andrea Geipel  

The ongoing digitalization and the growing importance of social and networked media lead to the emergence of new modes of science communication. Nowadays scientific topics can be found on several social platforms, like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or YouTube. Additionally, a huge number of scientific blogs aim to give insight into research. Despite this great presence of science related issues on digital formats as blogs and science videos on YouTube we still lack empirical studies examining this topic. Therefore, our project aims to answer the question how "scientificity" is constructed in science blogs and science videos. What are their similarities and differences in respect to the following dimensions: strategies, self-display, choice of topic, formal assembly, use of specific visual markers and references?

In our talk we will present the results of empirical case studies and interviews we conducted on science blogs on the one hand and science videos on the other hand. Drawing on the boundary-work-approach we analyze how these formats reconstruct images of as well as boundaries between of good, bad and non-science. As a result, we can distinguish prominent similarities and differences in respect to the enactment of "scientificity" contrasting both formats. Likewise, similarities and differences according to the respectively imagined audiences can be defined. Remarkably, various cases in both formats display an uncritical and affirmative relatedness to science. This relatedness leads to emotional and positive role models, i.e. of "doing science" and "observing science".

Potentially existing restraining forces, limitations and boundaries seem to be not important.

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP