Challenges in the collaboration between researchers and in-house communication professionals in the digital media landscape

In the changing science communication landscape, researchers may govern their public science-society relations through the social media connections at their fingertips. However, digital media outreach may create challenges for researchers and cause changes in the communication professionals' role. The aim of this qualitative interview study was to enhance understanding of the challenges in the rarely explored organizational collaboration between researchers and communication professionals. The results identify ambiguous duties and responsibilities, as well as blurring boundaries of occupational roles and coordination challenges in content production.

[1]  J. Olafsson.  Public engagement , 2020, Liberal Disorder, States of Exception, and Populist Politics.

[2]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Communicating science in organizational contexts: toward an “organizational turn” in science communication research , 2020 .

[3]  T. Koivumäki,et al.  “On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators , 2020, Media and Communication.

[4]  E. Weitkamp,et al.  Science communication and public relations: beyond borders , 2020 .

[5]  J. Besley.  Five thoughts about improving science communication as an organizational activity , 2020 .

[6]  Clare Wilkinson,et al.  Exploring the intersections: researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the organizational role of science communication , 2020 .

[7]  T. Roberson.  On social change, agency, and public interest: what can science communication learn from public relations? , 2020 .

[8]  S. Davies.  University communications as auto-communication: the NTNU ‘Challenge Everything’ campaign , 2020 .

[9]  S. Rödder.  Organisation matters: towards an organisational sociology of science communication , 2020 .

[10]  Kathleen M. Rose,et al.  Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  4. Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence , 2019 .

[12]  H. P. Peters,et al.  Do Organizational Interests Interfere with Public Communication of Science? An Explorative Study of Public Relations of Scientific Organizations in Taiwan , 2019, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal.

[13]  S. Ho,et al.  Public engagement by researchers of different disciplines in Singapore: A qualitative comparison of macro- and meso-level concerns , 2019, Public understanding of science.

[14]  Ward van Zoonen,et al.  The role of organizational identification and the desire to succeed in employees' use of personal twitter accounts for work , 2019, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  J. Verhoeven,et al.  The Big Idea of Employees as Strategic Communicators in Public Relation , 2019, Big Ideas in Public Relations Research and Practice.

[16]  M. Bauer,et al.  Public communication by climate scientists: what, with whom and why? , 2019, Climatic Change.

[17]  Sophia Charlotte Volk,et al.  How communication departments contribute to corporate success , 2018, Journal of Communication Management.

[18]  J. Besley,et al.  Scientists’ views about communication objectives , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[19]  Sara Heidenreich.  Outreaching, Outsourcing, and Disembedding , 2018 .

[20]  Birte Fähnrich.  Book review: Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship Davies Sarah R. Horst Maja Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship , London : Palgrave Macmillan , 2016 . 266 pp. ISBN 978-1-137-50366-4 . €95 (hardback). , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[21]  B. Trench.  Universities, science communication and professionalism , 2017 .

[22]  H. Cabral,et al.  How Do Science Communication Practitioners View Scientists and Audiences in Relation to Public Engagement Activities? A Research Note Concerning the Marine Sciences in Portugal , 2017 .

[23]  J. Pallas,et al.  Translating Institutional Logics: When the Media Logic Meets Professions , 2016 .

[24]  Anne Adams,et al.  “We muddle our way through”: shared and distributed expertise in digital engagement with research , 2016 .

[25]  J. Besley,et al.  Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement , 2016, PloS one.

[26]  W. Elving,et al.  Understanding Work-Related Social Media Use: An Extension of Theory of Planned Behavior , 2014 .

[27]  Sonja Dreher.  Social media and the world of work : A strategic approach to employees’ participation in social media , 2014 .

[28]  M. Claessens.  Research institutions: neither doing science communication nor promoting ‘public’ relations , 2014 .

[29]  Vilma Luoma-aho,et al.  Setting the agenda for research on issue arenas , 2014 .

[30]  R. Schibeci,et al.  What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[31]  Rick E. Borchelt,et al.  Public relations in science: managing the trust portfolio , 2014 .

[32]  Andres Friedrichsmeier,et al.  Organizational Influence on Scientists’ Efforts to Go Public , 2014 .

[33]  S. Verwey,et al.  Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication: Core driving forces , 2013 .

[34]  Massimiano Bucchi,et al.  Style in science communication , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[35]  J. Macnamara,et al.  Social Media Communication in Organizations: The Challenges of Balancing Openness, Strategy, and Management , 2012 .

[36]  Marita Vos,et al.  Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: acknowledging multiple issue arenas , 2010 .

[37]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[38]  N. Hoffart.  Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[39]  J Ogden,et al.  Behind closed doors. , 1993, Nursing times.

[40]  Timothy C. Clapper,et al.  Setting an Agenda , 2022, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[41]  Katrin Weller,et al.  Scholarly Communication in Social Media , 2018 .

[42]  Michael F. Dahlstrom,et al.  Ethics and Practice in Science Communication , 2018 .

[43]  P. Verhoeven,et al.  Doing the Right Things or Doing Things Right? Paradoxes and Swedish Communication Professionals’ roles and mission , 2015 .

[44]  C. McClain,et al.  A critical evaluation of science outreach via social media: its role and impact on scientists , 2014, F1000Research.

[45]  W. Scott.  Institutions and organizations : ideas, interests and identities , 2014 .