Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

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

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 649 - 669, 30.07.2023

Müge Öztunç Umur Bedir

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1273610
Cited By: 1

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Bilim İletişimi Bilim İnsanları İletişim Araştırmaları Kamusal İletişim Etkinlikleri Türkiye’de Akademisyenler

References

  • Balcı, S., & Ahi, B. (2016). SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu: SPSS ile Adım Adım Veri Analizi.
  • 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
  • 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
  • BBSRC. (2014). Public Engagement and Science Communication Survey. https://www.ukri.org/publications/public-engagement-and-science-communication-survey/
  • 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
  • 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
  • Brophy, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (2014). Motivating Students to Learn (4. bs). Routledge.
  • Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458(7236), 274-277. https://doi.org/10.1038/458274a
  • 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
  • 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
  • Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Policy Studies Institute. https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp060036.pdf
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific Barriers to the Popularization of Science in the Mass Media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26-42.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516633834
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000). Additive Logistic Regression: A Statistical View of Boosting. The Annals of Statistics, 28(2).
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Hilbe, J. M. (2009). Logistic Regression Models. CRC Press.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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/
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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/
  • Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. İçinde The sciences’ media connection–public communication and its repercussions (ss. 155-179). Springer.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • The Royal Society. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf,
  • 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/
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • YÖK. (2022). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. Öğretim elamanı istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/

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

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 649 - 669, 30.07.2023

Müge Öztunç Umur Bedir

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1273610
Cited By: 1

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.

Keywords

science communication scientists communication studies public communication activities public engagement academics in Türkiye

References

  • Balcı, S., & Ahi, B. (2016). SPSS Kullanma Kılavuzu: SPSS ile Adım Adım Veri Analizi.
  • 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
  • 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
  • BBSRC. (2014). Public Engagement and Science Communication Survey. https://www.ukri.org/publications/public-engagement-and-science-communication-survey/
  • 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
  • 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
  • Brophy, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (2014). Motivating Students to Learn (4. bs). Routledge.
  • Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458(7236), 274-277. https://doi.org/10.1038/458274a
  • 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
  • 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
  • Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Policy Studies Institute. https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp060036.pdf
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific Barriers to the Popularization of Science in the Mass Media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26-42.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516633834
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000). Additive Logistic Regression: A Statistical View of Boosting. The Annals of Statistics, 28(2).
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Hilbe, J. M. (2009). Logistic Regression Models. CRC Press.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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/
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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/
  • Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. İçinde The sciences’ media connection–public communication and its repercussions (ss. 155-179). Springer.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • The Royal Society. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf,
  • 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/
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • YÖK. (2022). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. Öğretim elamanı istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Türkçe Araştırma Makaleleri
Authors

Müge Öztunç 0000-0002-4514-7386

Umur Bedir 0000-0002-6313-4028

Publication Date July 30, 2023
Submission Date March 30, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Cite

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

Cited By

Institutionalization of Science Communication in Universities of Türkiye: A Qualitative Analysis of Central Communication Units
Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.1308989
 Download Cover Image
Creative Commons Lisansı  Bu dergi Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.