KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Erciyes İletişim Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Türkiye’de Bilim İnsanlarının Kamusal İletişim Etkinlikleri ve Buna Etki Eden Faktörlerin Analizi

Analysis of the Public Communication Activities of Scientists and Related Factors in Türkiye

Müge Öztunç(İSTANBUL AYDIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4514-7386
Umur Bedir(İSTANBUL AYDIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6313-4028
Sayfa
649–669
Yayın Tarihi
2023-07-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Çalışma, akademisyenleri kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerine katılmaya motive eden temel faktörlerin içsel olduğunu ve dışsal motivasyon/ödül ile kamusal iletişime katılım arasında negatif bir korelasyon olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki bilim insanlarının gerçekleştirdiği kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerini, bunların sıklığını ve hedef kitlelerini inceleyerek, bu faaliyetlerin bilim insanlarının motivasyonları ve toplum algıları ile nasıl ilişkili olduğunu tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Akademik unvan, üniversite türü, cinsiyet ve akademik alan gibi kriterleri göz önünde bulunduran kota örneklemesi kullanılarak 391 akademisyen bilim insanından veri toplanmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Çalışma, akademisyenleri kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerine katılmaya motive eden temel faktörlerin içsel olduğunu ve dışsal motivasyon/ödül ile kamusal iletişime katılım arasında negatif bir korelasyon olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Bilim İletişimi · Bilim İnsanları · İletişim Araştırmaları

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki bilim insanlarının gerçekleştirdiği kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerini, bunların sıklığını ve hedef kitlelerini inceleyerek, bu faaliyetlerin bilim insanlarının motivasyonları ve toplum algıları ile nasıl ilişkili olduğunu tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu araştırma, akademisyenlerin içsel ve dışsal motivasyonlarının (roller ve ödüller) ve toplum algılarının kamusal iletişim faaliyetleriyle nasıl ilişkili olduğunu anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Akademik unvan, üniversite türü, cinsiyet ve akademik alan gibi kriterleri göz önünde bulunduran kota örneklemesi kullanılarak 391 akademisyen bilim insanından veri toplanmıştır. Çalışma, akademisyenleri kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerine katılmaya motive eden temel faktörlerin içsel olduğunu ve dışsal motivasyon/ödül ile kamusal iletişime katılım arasında negatif bir korelasyon olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Akademisyenlerin kamusal iletişim faaliyetlerinde yer almak için içsel motivasyonlarının önemini gösteren bu araştırma, akademisyenlerin halkın bilimle ilgilenmesine yardımcı olma rolünü genişletmek için bir yön sunmaktadır. Gelecekteki çalışmalar, akademisyenlerin kamu iletişiminde cinsiyete dayalı farklılıkların nedenlerini inceleyebilir.

Abstract

This study examines the public communication activities that scientists in Türkiye perform, their frequency and the audiences that are targeted to determine how such activities are related to scientists’ motivations and their perceptions of society. This research aims to understand how academics’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (roles and rewards) and perceptions of society are associated with public communication activities. Data from 391 academic scientists were collected using quota sampling that considered criteria such as academic title, university type, gender and academic field. The study found that the main factors motivating academics to engage in public communication activities are intrinsic, and indeed a negative correlation was observed between external motivation(reward) and engagement in public communication. This research, which shows the importance of academics’ intrinsic motivation to engage in public communication activities, offers a direction for expanding the role of academics in helping the public to engage with science. Future studies may examine the causes of gender-based differences in public communication by academics.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Öztunç, M., Bedir, U. (2023). Türkiye’de Bilim İnsanlarının Kamusal İletişim Etkinlikleri ve Buna Etki Eden Faktörlerin Analizi. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 649–669. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1273610

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (57)

  1. Balcı, S., & Ahi, B. (2016). SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu: SPSS ile Adım Adım Veri Analizi.
  2. Barrett, M. S., Novak, J. M., Venette, S. J., & Shumate, M. (2006). Validating the High Reliability Organization Perception Scale. Communication Research Reports, 23(2), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600669087
  3. Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457
  4. BBSRC. (2014). Public Engagement and Science Communication Survey. https://www.ukri.org/publications/public-engagement-and-science-communication-survey/
  5. Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461
  6. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
  7. Brophy, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (2014). Motivating Students to Learn (4. bs). Routledge.
  8. Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458(7236), 274-277. https://doi.org/10.1038/458274a
  9. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Içinde M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Ed.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (1. bs). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203928240-11/deficits-deviations-dialogues-theories-public-communication-science-massimiano-bucchi
  10. Burakgazi, S. G. (2017). Kritik Olaylar, Politik Dokümanlar, Raporlar ve Araştırmalar Işığında Türkiye’de Bilim İletişimi. Selçuk Üniversite İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi, 10(1), 232-261. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.303022
  11. Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Policy Studies Institute. https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp060036.pdf
  12. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public culture as professional science Final report of the ScoPE project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?). BIOS (Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society), London School of Economics and Political Science. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1540092.pdf
  13. Carrus, G., Panno, A., & Leone, L. (2018). The Moderating Role of Interest in Politics on the Relations between Conservative Political Orientation and Denial of Climate Change. Society & Natural Resources, 31(10), 1103-1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1463422
  14. Crettaz von Roten, F. (2011). Gender Differences in Scientists’ Public Outreach and Engagement Activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658
  15. Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
  16. Dudo, A. (2013). Toward a Model of Scientists’ Public Communication Activity: The Case of Biomedical Researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845
  17. Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
  18. Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or Rewards? Predicting U.S. Scientist-Media Interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203
  19. Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific Barriers to the Popularization of Science in the Mass Media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26-42.
  20. Dursun, Ç. (2010). Dünyada Bilim İletişiminin Gelişimi ve Farklı Yaklaşımlar: Toplum İçin Bilimden Toplumda Bilime. Kurgu Online International Journal of Communication Studies, 2, 1-31.
  21. Entradas, M. (2016). What is the public’s role in ‘space’ policymaking? Images of the public by practitioners of ‘space’ communication in the United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515579838
  22. Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516633834
  23. Entradas, M., Marcelino, J., Bauer, M. W., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). Public communication by climate scientists: What, with whom and why? Climatic Change, 154(1-2), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02414-9
  24. Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 233.
  25. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1117-1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00385.x
  26. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000). Additive Logistic Regression: A Statistical View of Boosting. The Annals of Statistics, 28(2).
  27. Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating Through the Media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547097018003005
  28. Gemici, O. O. (2022, Nisan 29). YÖK 2021-2022 öğretim dönemine ait yükseköğretim istatistikleri yayımlandı. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/turkiyedeki-universite-ogrenci-sayisi-artti/2576408
  29. Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252-1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00137.x
  30. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public. Communication, Culture, and Credibility (1. bs). Plenum trade, (1998)., New York. https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Science-Public-Communication-Culture-Credibility-GREGORY/30936385330/bd
  31. Hilbe, J. M. (2009). Logistic Regression Models. CRC Press.
  32. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemesbow, S. (2007). Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03610928008827941
  33. Ivanova, A., Schäfer, M. S., Schlichting, I., & Schmidt, A. (2013). Is There a Medialization of Climate Science? Results From a Survey of German Climate Scientists. Science Communication, 35(5), 626-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012475226
  34. Jensen, P. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383632
  35. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130
  36. Kreimer, P., Levin, L., & Jensen, P. (2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383924
  37. Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular Science Publishing and Contributions to Public Discourse among University Faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004273022
  38. Leshner, A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 299(5609), 977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977
  39. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
  40. Marcinkowski, F., & Kohring, M. (2014). The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3). http://jcom.sissa.it/
  41. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S., & Friedrichsmeier, A. (2014). Organizational Influence on Scientists’ Efforts to Go Public: An Empirical Investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013494022
  42. Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, Self, and Society: The Definitive Edition (C. W. M. A. E. by D. R. Huebner & H. Joas, Ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo20099389.html
  43. Özdemi̇r, S., & Koçer, D. N. (2020). 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye’nin Bilim İletişimi Uygulamaları Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 373-392. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.685206
  44. Öztunç, M., Bedi̇r, U., & Suerdem, A. (2023). Üniversitelerin Bilim İletişimi Etkinliklerinin Kurumsallaşması Üzerine Yeni Bir Ölçek Denemesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(86), 362-390. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1037573
  45. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Interactions with the Mass Media. Science, 321(5886), 204-205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780
  46. Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
  47. Rainie, L. (2015, Şubat 15). How Scientists Engage the Public. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/
  48. Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. İçinde The sciences’ media connection–public communication and its repercussions (ss. 155-179). Springer.
  49. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
  50. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Self-Determination-Theory/Ryan-Deci/9781462538966
  51. Stenhouse, N., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Kotcher, J. E., Beall, L., & Maibach, E. W. (2018). The potential role of actively open-minded thinking in preventing motivated reasoning about controversial science. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.06.001
  52. The Royal Society. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf,
  53. The Royal Society. (2006). Science Communication excellence in science: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2006/science-communication/
  54. UCL. (2008). Establishing a baseline for public engagement: Guiding your strategy. Fresh Minds. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/sites/culture/files/attitudes_to_public_engagement.pdf
  55. Watermeyer, R. (2011). Challenges for university engagement in the UK: Toward a public academe? Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 386-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00492.x
  56. Wellcome Trust. (2001). The Role of Scientists in Public Debate [Full report]. MORI (Market & Opinion Research International),. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtd003425_0.pdf
  57. YÖK. (2022). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. Öğretim elamanı istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/