The Benefits of the Video Abstract as a Newly Emerging Academic Genre (English version) (original) (raw)
Communicating Science: a Modern Event
2020
Science is by its very nature an intersubjective, public, collaborative and democratic (at least in principle) enterprise. The modern scholar of nature, in fact, cannot but communicate first of all to his/her colleagues the results of his/her research, since, in the final analysis, science is a socially shared and socially validated corpus of knowledge. The results of research must therefore be made public but non only among the specialists. The modern way of communicating science has triggered a progressively accelerating circulation of documents (rather than researchers), reversing a more than secular trend in which scholars reached the places where knowledge was deposited and archived. The modern databases, that host books, newspaper and periodicals like actual libraries and are accessible online, represent the last expression of this inverted mobility between documents and consultants.
WP216 Armon & Georgakopoulou 2017. Popularization in action: Small stories of scientific expertise
This study examines news interviews with scientific experts for the stories they occasion so as to present their research to media audiences. Interactions between scientists and hosts are examined in a corpus of interviews with scientific experts broadcasted live on Israeli television with the " small stories " approach that looks at storytelling as talk-in-interaction that is tailored to participants' agendas. Popularization is typically studied as a form of translation or diffusion of scientific knowledge adapted from academic sources for popular consumption. Popularization studies have examined how academic knowledge is disseminated and contextualized in different formats and genres and the role of professional or amateur mediators in making science public. While previous studies have looked into popularization narratives as packaged for popular consumption, this article looks at their occasioning in relation to the agendas of researchers and journalists. Experts are found to structure many accounts as tellings of ongoing events or hypothetical scenarios and reference their research, practices, or the entities they study. These stories are shown to support a positive presentation of the findings communicated while distancing the experts from exaggerated or future-oriented claims that their hosts are understood to be drawing.
De Gruyter eBooks, 2023
The publication and distribution of scientific results is of major importance for knowledge societies (Stehr, 1994; Castelfranchi, 2007), especially in the face of the complex and multifaceted challenges in today's world. This volume takes as its starting point a twofold interest in the communicative interplay between science and the mass media. First, the ways in which "scientific facts" as the result of scientific research, discourse, and shared conventions (Fleck, 2019 [1935]) become part of public communication, especially through journalism. Second, the ways in which public communication about, and especially journalistic representations of and references to, scientific knowledge affect processes of knowledge production, scientific discourse, and allocation of reputation within science. Major actors in this interface are researchers themselves, professional science communicators and science journalists, but also platforms and intermediary organizations that curate scientific research for distribution into mass media. Each of these have their own approach to the selection, presentation and mediation of scientific knowledge. To highlight different aspects of the science-media interface, this volume integrates perspectives from scientometrics and quantitative science studies, and from communication science and journalism studies. The concepts of internal and external science communication are useful for distinguishing the communication practices by which scientific knowledge is produced, verified, shared, and acknowledged within the scientific community from those by which it is communicated and engaged with outside of the scientific community (Leßmöllmann & Gloning, 2019). The rise of digital media has, however, led to a refiguration of science communication, characterized by new actors, practices and orientations (Broer & Hasebrink, 2022) and a blurring of traditional role divisions between the production, evaluation and dissemination of science (Franzen, 2019; Neuberger et al., 2019). As the works in this volume highlight, the boundaries between internal and external science communication are permeable, resulting in deeply interwoven relationships affecting both forms of science communication.
Editorial: Collective entanglements in the doing of research
Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology
In this final issue of RERM in 2020, no less than 20 authors have participated in the materialization of four articles, which connect to each other in various ways. All of the articles focus upon productive relations, between authors, as well as between materials and people. All four articles illustrate the productiveness of moments in doing research that challenge the distinctions between researcher and researched, the concrete and the abstract, and the author and the text, arguably contrasting and adding humbleness to dominant academic structures centering the “researcher I” and its individual quest for qualifications.
Making Science Accessible: A Semiotics of Scientific Communication
Biosemiotics, 2008
This article serves as a demonstration of how certain models of literary analysis, used to theorize and analyze fiction and narrative, can also be applied to scientific communication in such a manner as to promote the accessibility of science to the general public and a greater awareness of the methodology used in making scientific discovery. The approach of this article is based on the assumption that the principles of structuralism and semiotics can provide plausible explanations for the divide between the reception of science and literature. We provide a semiotic analysis of a scientific article that has had significant impact in the field of molecular biology with profound medical implications. Furthermore, we show how the structural and semiotic characteristics of literary texts are also evident in the scientific papers, and we address how these characteristics can be applied to scientific prose in order to propose a model of scientific communication that reaches the public. By applying this theoretical framework to the analysis of both scientific and literary communication, we establish parallels between primary scientific texts and literary prose.
Proceedings Teem 2018, 2018
Scientific communication undergoes changes of growth and model in virtue of phenomena related to the new modes of production and dissemination of documents, which affect their forms of visibility and impact. The nature of the research, affected more and more by the pressure to publish, and by the acceleration of publication times, is increasingly affected by the appearance of phenomena such as those of the predatory Publisher, and the tensions between the large publishing corporations and open access platforms.
FCJ-227 Survey and Project: On the (Im)possibility of Scholarship in an Era of Networked Knowledge
The Fibreculture Journal
There are at least two dimensions to the transformation in the character of scholarly publishing and the correlative shift in the networked conditions of production of scholarly work. The scope and scale of material available has radically increased and the mechanisms of judging scholarly value have been increasingly refined. Yet, we have not done enough to critically reflect on what these transformations have done to the experience of producing scholarly work. I am referring to the simple way that everyday activities of scholarship have been transformed. An obvious example is the practice of carrying out a literature review. This brief essay presents some notes on literature review preparation and abstract writing from the perspective of a mid-career academic who is committed to assisting their research students. It then argues there are two new meta-professional skills required of scholars to function in academia and in which our research students need to develop expertise. What if we could problematise the 'project' (or 'projectify' the problem)? Rather than the coordinates of the project being determined by the administrative burden of measurement and correlative productivity according to maximum gradients of anxiety (the neoliberal academic model), what if the 'project' was configured as an instrument for suspending practices of discovery according to the maximum gradients of curiosity (the post-neoliberal academic model)? This is the difference between passive and active affections that befall scholars as they are socialised as academics.
The Cinematic Turn in Public Discussions of Science
2005
The specialized vocabularies and complex methodologies of scientific practice complicate efforts both to communicate scientific information to lay publics and to enable those publics to sort out competing scientific claims when public policy decisions hang in the balance.