“It’s my job”: A qualitative study of the mediatization of science within the scientist-journalist relationship

Through 19 interviews with scientists, this study examines scientists’ use of media logic and their relationships with journalists using research as the focal point. The authors identified that the scientists shared a basic understanding of media logic classified in three patterns. Two patterns were previously identified by Olesk: 1) adaption (ability to explain research in a simple, engaging fashion but with a reactive approach to journalist interaction) and 2) adoption (proactively create and manage media interactions for strategic aims through a more active use of media logic). The other emerged as a new, third pattern, affiliation (enthusiastic contributors to journalists’ production practices and desire to engage in public outreach).


36
Research-typically in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles and preprints-acts as a basis 37 of mutual interest for the scientist-journalist relationship. Journalists have long relied on these 38 articles as a primary source for information in their reporting [Williams & Clifford, 2008;Veneu 39 et al., 2008;Wihbey, 2017]. They connect with research articles in a variety of ways, notably 40 through online databases, journals, and preprint servers, and media relations offices of 41 universities, research organizations, and pharmaceutical companies [Amend & Secko, 2012;42 Fleerackers et al., 2021]. Journalists also reach out directly to scientists, asking for research 43 articles and interviews [Fleerackers et al., 2021;Dijkstra et al., 2015]. Such approaches come 44 with risks: a "loss of information diversity" through the repetition of information sources and the 45 citation of the same scientists and research) and a science agenda overly influenced by academic 46 institutions and scholarly and commercial publishers issuing press releases [Granado, 2011, p. 47 795]. These risks can be exacerbated by a mismatch in practices, norms, and values between 48 scientists and journalists [Nguyen &  research with the goals of promoting their field, their research, or their institution, while 51 journalists can be less concerned with these goals and more constrained by deadlines [Dijkstra et 52 al., 2015;Peters, 1995]. 53 54 Still, both journalists and scientists see science-media interactions as beneficial and the use of 55 research as a shared touchstone [Dijkstra et al., 2015;Besley & Nisbet, 2013]. These symbiotic 56 relationships between scientists and journalists [Lubens, 2015] may encourage an adaptation or 57 adoption of practices between professions [Olesk, 2021]. Journalists' roles have evolved [Fahy & 58 Nisbet, 2011], with a move toward greater analysis and interpretation of research findings 59 [Rensberger, 2009;Albaek, 2011]. Scientists, meanwhile, have moved toward, if not embraced, 60 journalistic practices, goals, norms, and values in what they call the "mediatization of science"-61 "an increase in the orientation of science to its social context" [Peters et al., 2008, p. 72]. 62 Mediatization can be understood as: 63 64 the mutual relation between science and the mass media. It is based on the assumption that-due 65 to the importance of the mass media in framing public opinion-there is an increasingly tighter 66 coupling of science and the mass media [Franzen et al., 2012, p. 4-5].

68
This coupling has wide-ranging implications for science and society, shaping how scientific 69 research is conducted [Weingart, 2012] and presented to the public [Peters, 2012]. As such, 70 scholars have raised concerns that mediatization encourages a weakening of science's autonomy 71 [Weingart, 2012] through a bend toward "media logic," which Altheide [2013] described as the 72 form and formats of communication. Alongside these potential dangers of mediatization, 73 however, scientists' adoption of media logic could also facilitate interactions between journalists 74 and scientists by providing the shared norms, practices, and expectations needed to effectively 75 communicate [Carson, 2015]. 76 77 To understand the implications of the growing mediatization of science [Bauer, 2012], scientists' 78 use of media logic must be considered alongside ongoing changes to the relationships between 79 scientists and journalists. Recent studies suggest that scientists and journalists align in their 80 motivations, particularly in their sense of shared public responsibility and push for responsible 81 research [Olesk, 2021;Dijkstra et al., 2015]. Increasingly, journalists rely on interviews with 82 scientists to legitimize their news frames and to facilitate a "dynamic interplay between 83 journalist and researcher that will largely determine whether or not the journalist comes to see 84 the event as sufficiently 'significant' and 'interesting' to warrant news coverage" [Albaek, 2011, 85 p

113
This study, conducted during the pandemic and in the context of scientific debate, controversies, 114 and political polarization [Dunwoody, 2020], aims to examine scientists' use of media logic and 115 the nature of their relationships with journalists. It does so using research (i.e., preprints and 116 peer-reviewed journal articles) as the focal point for qualitative interviews, offering a view into 117 this intersection of seemingly disparate professions as they negotiate the volatile waters of our 118 global pandemic. 119 120 We apply the mediatization of science as our conceptual approach and adapt a framework by 121 Olesk [2021]

134
This study is part of a larger research program that explores scientific research featured in the 135 news. We focus primarily on scientists' perspectives; however, our analysis was informed by 136 journalists' interviews (see Authors, 2021). We conducted the current study using qualitative 137 description methodology [Sandelowski, 2010] guided by a constructivist paradigm 138 [Sandelowski, 2010]. Constructivism assumes that participants devise the realities in which they 139 engage. Through this lens we were able to better understand scientists' motivations, views, and 140 professional practices in relation to journalists. 141 142

143
We recruited 19 scientists whose research had been mentioned in a news article. The lead author 144 and a research assistant manually identified names of scientists who were quoted directly or 145 whose research was mentioned or hyperlinked in a sample of 400 news articles from The 146 Guardian

153
We designed our semi-structured interview protocol 2 using the literature and our experience as 154 journalists and research scientists. The first portion of the protocol included general questions 155 about scientists' use of research and experience working with journalists; the second portion was 156 a talk-aloud in which they described their actual experience in the reporting of a science news 157 article drawn from our sample. This approach allowed scientists to say what they typically did 158 (first portion of interview) and then explain what they actually did for a particular story (second 159 portion). Recruitment and interviews occurred between September-January 2022. After 15 160 interviews, we began to discuss the potential of reaching an adequate level of information power 161 base that would enable us to meet our research aims [Malterud et al., 2016]. After 19 interviews, 162 we agreed that we had reached an adequate level. Interviews, which lasted up to 60 minutes, 163 were conducted and recorded via Zoom and were transcribed and de-identified for analysis. 164 165

166
We used framework analysis [Ritchie et al., 2013], which accommodates multidisciplinary 167 research teams and thematic analysis of semi-structured interview transcripts [Gale et al., 2013]. 168 The framework allowed us to compare and contrast data across cases, as well as within 169 individual cases (i.e., individual scientists), and to identify first patterns and then personas of 170 mediatized scientists. We independently read and coded each transcript, using a mix of deductive 171 coding based on Olesk's [2021] existing typology of mediatized scientists) and inductive coding 172 (based on emergent patterns in the data). We coded instances of scientists presenting indicators 173 of media logic in five dimensions (see Table 1). Throughout the coding, the three authors (a 174 professor of medicine and two former journalists now working as academic researchers) met 175 multiple times virtually to reflect on the analysis. In these conversations, we recognized and 176 discussed how our backgrounds and experiences facilitated our ability to be reflexive in our 177 examination of the transcripts from the perspective of both professions. See it as a shared responsibility with journalists.

Awareness of media logic
Express awareness of media logic and feel confident using journalistic news style.
Able to explain their work in simple terms and feel confident giving interviews. Criticize journalists' routines.
Able to understand and accept journalists' work logic, and express themselves in journalistic news style.
Able to appreciate and contribute to content production practices used by journalists.

Mastering media logic
Confident in mastering media logic and using it to trigger media coverage or introduce relevant angles.
Not familiar with news production practices; write occasional press releases; otherwise do not initiate media coverage.
Contact journalists proactively and "sell" stories and angles to them.
Articulate and share content production practices used by journalists.
Purposeful use of media See media as a tool for achieving scientific or nonscientific aims.
See media coverage as benefitting the current project (getting attention, increasing awareness about an issue, etc.).
Have more strategic aims (wider benefits to science, economy, etc.) and think in terms of target groups and messages.
See participation in media coverage as a partnership with journalists with a desire for high impact (contribute to public health, society) and think in terms of behavior change for public.

184
We used a spreadsheet to generate a matrix, including references to illustrative quotations. 185 Charting involved summarizing the data by category to create a holistic impression of what each 186 scientist said [Miles et al., 2018]. For each scientist we created a user profile with demographic 187 information and categorized each scientist's orientation to media logic using the adapted Olesk 188 [2021] framework (see Table 1). Then, we created personas (i.e., "super-typical" representations

193
All 19 participant scientists shared at least a basic understanding of media logic; yet our analysis 194 revealed three patterns in their mediatization. Two of these patterns were previously identified by 195 Olesk [2021]: 1) adaption of media logic (ability to explain research in a simple, engaging 196 fashion but with a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to journalist interactions) and 2) 197 adoption of media logic (proactively create and manage media interactions for strategic aims and 198 through the more active use of media logic). We identified a new, third pattern, affiliation of 199 media logic, through early reading and coding of the transcripts. 200 201

Patterns of mediatization 202
Adaption of media logic

203
A minority of scientists expressed an awareness and basic mastery of journalistic norms, values, 204 and practices but took a reactive approach to communication activities characteristic of adaption 205 of media logic. These scientists' interactions with journalists were typically mediated by their 206 institution's communications group or a journal's press department. While these scientists could 207 articulate the process of working with the media, they did not necessarily experience it firsthand, 208 often relying on others to write their quotations and public-facing research descriptions. They did 209 not prioritize media outreach or see their relationships with journalists as something they needed 210 to maintain or improve. 211 212 Adaptive scientists generally viewed the role of communication professionals as helpful-a 213 shield from the risks of working with the news media. If a journalist reached out to them directly, 214 they typically reported seeking help in responding from their institution's communications 215 group. As one scientist explained, 216 217 We have people here who write drafts, and we'll go back and forth and make sure that the science 218 and, you know, the communication is as accurate as it can be. And then, they do the press release, 219 and then news outlets will take that up. [Sci_13] 220 221 As adaptive scientists' understanding of the journalistic process was typically framed from the 222 perspective of an institution or journal, they could be flummoxed when a journalist deviated 223 from this idealized process. For example, adaptive scientists were often frustrated if journalists 224 did not circle back with their quotations and interview content for approval or did not exclusively 225 contact first or second authors. 226 227 Adaptive scientists also viewed journalism as a way to promote one's work, rather than to 228 promote research as a societal good. Several resisted reaching out to journalists, with one saying: 229 230 I do not...contact journalists to send them my work. I don't know, it feels like-for some 231 reason-it feels tacky to do that, but maybe I should do it more often? [Sci_11] 232 233 Yet, that scientist also acknowledged that peers had different, albeit still promotional, 234 approaches: 235 236 We have this paper that's currently in review, and the first author, who is currently looking for a Adaptive scientists also seemed to share a lack of confidence in journalists' ability to understand 242 research: 243 244 Unfortunately, it just seems really, really, really unlikely to me that a journalist can look at a 245 preprint or an article, something in arXiv, and make any sense out of it, and make any judgment 246 about correctness or importance, or anything like that. [Sci_08] 247 248 Adoption of media logic 249 Adoption of media logic was a more common pattern among the scientists, characterized by 250 ambivalence about the controlled forms of media outreach laid out by communication groups at 251 their institutions and target journals. On the one hand, adoptive scientists said they appreciated 252 the efficiency of this approach; they put their trust in communications professionals, thankful 253 that someone else could handle the influx of media requests and help them navigate the media 254 system. On the other hand, adoptive scientists were sometimes frustrated that this approach gave 255 communications professionals ultimate control over their public communication. They lamented 256 how communications professionals organized and "triaged" media interviews, deciding which 257 requests to prioritize and which to pass over; determined which papers to promote actively; 258 enforced limits on what scientists could and could not discuss on the record; and prepared press 259 releases with ready-made author "quotes" for scientists to review and approve. Unlike their 260 adaptive peers, adoptive scientists also revealed a sophisticated understanding of the outcomes of 261 media coverage, which they leveraged to advance their institution's brand and reputation, recruit 262 faculty and students, and procure funding. Adoptive scientists better recognized that journalists 263 operated independently-outside the controlled, if not idealized, realm of an institution's 264 communications group or a journal's press department. 265 266 Adoptive scientists also proactively created and managed media interactions, stating that they 267 "always respond" or "try to respond to all" journalist inquiries [Sci_12, Sci_19]. These scientists 268 considered working with journalists as part of their professional role, even if the effort fell 269 outside of their formal work description. One scientist put it simply: "It's my job" [Sci_19]. 270 Another scientist explained his need to "always respond" in the context of journalists' reliance 271 on experts for accuracy: 272 273 The last thing I want is for a journalist to write a paper about our work or about anybody's work 274 without talking to experts, so I'm totally available…we want it to be presented in the best, correct 275 scientific light." [Sci_12] 276 277 Oftentimes, adoptive scientists leveraged multiple ways to encourage media coverage. One 278 scientist said, "I know journalists cover scientific conferences," adding that he responded to a 279 journalist at a recent conference and "ended up exchanging emails" as the journalist "prepared 280 the piece" [Sci_18]. That same scientist also reached out directly to journalists through a range of 281 media, intertwining personal and professional realms: 282 283 I think leveraging all of those resources-social media through your own personal or institutional 284 account, but also using media outlets virtually or in print-could be very beneficial for scientists. 285 [Sci_18] 286 287 As demonstrated above, adoptive scientists often employed language suggesting the "use" of 288 journalists and the media to achieve their goals. However, they also expressed frustration at the 289 professions' differing practices. One scientist explained, 290 291 Sometimes it can be challenging talking to journalists, and there's just different norms about 292 attribution and citation and stuff like that in journalism versus academia. [Sci_14] 293 294 Scientists' lived experiences interacting with journalists did not always align with their more 295 abstract, big picture reflections on their relationships to media logic. Even scientists who held 296 journalists in high esteem overall could recall negative interactions (e.g., being misquoted, being 297 asked unexpected or inappropriate interview questions). These negative experiences often 298 elicited critical perceptions of journalists that were most in line with an adaptive orientation. This 299 was the case for Sci_05, for example, who recounted a live radio interview in which she was not 300 addressed by name but instead referred to as the "pretty mumps lady." 301 302 In most cases, however, specific experiences working with journalists did not appear to 303 fundamentally change adoptive scientists' underlying orientation to media logic; instead, they 304 elicited a more measured approach to media interactions, particularly when accepting interviews 305 from unknown journalists or those from outlets perceived to be less trustworthy. For instance, 306 several scientists preferred national over local media and legacy print publications over radio and 307 broadcast outlets, believing that those publications produced higher quality journalism. 308 309 Despite At the core of the affiliation of media logic pattern was a sense of collaboration. These scientists 331 partnered with or helped journalists by articulating research in simplified narratives, providing 332 critique and context about other scientists' studies, and inspiring news frames and story ideas. 333 They also employed characteristics of content production used by journalists, such as an 334 awareness of a story's timeliness and the need for it to be both interesting and relevant to the 335 public. These scientists displayed a more purposeful use of media. For instance, one scientist 336 said, "For me, I see the press as an ally in terms of helping disseminate information and being 337 very committed to doing that accurately and fairly" (Sci_19 similarly acknowledged that this attention "can be seen to be sort of good for the CV/career" 384 [Sci_02] as "the paper you published is somehow more important than if you don't have press" 385 [Sci_01]. Yet, more senior scientists described these career rewards as more of an added benefit 386 than a major motivation for working with journalists, possibly because-as tenured 387 researchers-they had already proven their value at their institution.

389
Journal pressures

390
The need to please journals was an important force shaping scientists' interactions with 391 journalists. This pressure meant that both fears and potential benefits associated with media 392 attention were often amplified when submitting research to "high impact" journals, which 393 scientists believed were not only more valued by their tenure committees but also by their 394 institutional communication groups. As one researcher recounted of her time as a grad student: 395 I was at, you know, a big R1 university, and the culture was sort of if your paper wasn't in 396 Science or Nature-or maybe PNAS-like, you did not tell the press department. scientist was either an ECR focused on academic promotion or a more senior researcher working 447 for a large nonprofit or government organization. The ECR found the general publishing and 448 research promotion process-from journal embargos to institutional and journal press releases-449 frustrating and out of their control. As one scientist explained, 450 451 [The press release] was from the journal. They wrote one. And we actually didn't have a lot of 452 say in how that was written. I remember because we were not super happy with it, but they said 453 we should just only comment…. They made it very clear that we were not supposed to change Senior scientists were more accepting of institutional processes, but felt those elements could 457 work against a mandate of science: to share timely, understandable scientific knowledge with the 458 public. 459 460 Both types of Constrained Communicator viewed their plight as part of a larger promotion 461 system outside their control. They followed the lead of press officers, hewed closely to dictums 462 of top journals, and resisted sharing data and papers prior to peer-reviewed publication. Perhaps as a result, the Ambivalent Media Source rarely approached journalists, recognizing that 487 they would need to commit time and energy-which they did not have-to communicate. 488 Additionally, there were no guarantees that their efforts would pay off: 489 490 Sometimes, I'll spend an hour or so talking to a journalist, and then they'll use a lot of the stuff I 491 told them, and not mention that I was the one who told them or not link to any of the papers. 492 [Sci_14] 493 494 While the Ambivalent Media Source occasionally had direct contact with journalists, it was 495 reactive (i.e., "I always call them back") and their mediatization was piecemeal, with a limited 496 understanding of journalistic practice. One scientist said: 497 498 We get contacted by journalists and then even if you ask them, 'Can you send me a link when the 499 piece is out,' they rarely do it. I don't know if it's some rule to not do it, or if they just forget or This seasoned scientist was a strategic marketer and recognized their efforts as crucial for 507 gaining talent and funding. Their lab and research were well established and did not require 508 constant oversight, allowing time and space to develop plans for promoting their work. The 509 Strategist saw media coverage as a powerful tool for advancing their career, findings, and field. 510 They worried less about being seen as crass or "tacky" and were comfortable using mediatized, 511 commercial language: 512 513 Getting some recognition… is motivating… exposing the public to some of the nice things that 514 you are doing-that's one of the greatest recruiting tools for science and engineering. [Sci_09] 515 516 From their view, journalists and communication professionals can-and should-be managed. 517 The Strategist was selective about the media they shared their research with, favoring journalists 518 at major legacy publications such as the Atlantic, BBC, Guardian, New York Times, or 519 Washington Post. 520 521 Highly mediatized, the Strategist used many journalistic tools and approaches to orchestrate 522 media coverage and dedicated considerable time to planning interactions with journalists. This scientist genuinely liked working with journalists and saw their efforts to do so as a 529 collaboration. The Media Enthusiast viewed journalists as a key way to share knowledge and 530 encourage change in society. They were mediatized enough to be strategic but were driven by a 531 desire to share science, rather than promote themselves or their institutions. As one Media 532 Enthusiast put it: 533 534 [Getting research to the public]-it's huge. I mean, most of my work is publicly funded, so I have 535 a mandate or mission to share the work with the public… journalists are and news organizations 536 are super, super important in that process…. They are the best way for us to get the word out. 537 [Si_10] 538 539 The Media Enthusiast had often left-or was teetering on leaving-academia for an environment 540 where they believed they would have greater public impact. 541 542 Highly mediatized and curious, the Media Enthusiast was likely to join a journalist for lunch at a 543 conference or exchange email messages about a topic of interest. They brainstormed with 544 journalists and shared story ideas. They regularly tweeted, looked for opportunities to build their 545 online following, and enjoyed publishing work on research amplifier platforms such as The 546 Conversation, where they could partner more formally with journalists. 547 548

549
This research examines the mediatization of science holistically, exploring how scientists' 550 professional context works alongside their internalization of media logic to shape interactions 551 with journalists. Our findings offer a comprehensive and updated understanding of 552 mediatization, demonstrating how factors such as career stage, pressures from journals, and 553 institutional context can intersect with a scientists' wider communication goals to influence 554 whether and how they engage with journalists. We also highlight a partnership-type "affiliation" 555 orientation of scientists to journalists that is characterized by collaboration, shared interests, 556 goals, and efforts. In doing so, we make several empirical, practical, and methodological 557 contributions. 558 559 Empirically, the affiliation pattern expressed by many scientists in this study diverges from 560 previous research suggesting antagonistic relationships between scientists and journalists 561 [MacNamara, 2014], but supports recent studies suggesting such relationships are generally 562 positive and mutually beneficial [Peters et al., 2008;Dijkstra et al., 2015]. The dominance of this 563 affiliative pattern also aligns with Dunwoody's [1999] prediction-made two decades ago-that 564 a "shared culture" would eventually emerge between scientists and journalists, in which the two 565 sets of actors would equally contribute to the public communication of science. What this 566 affiliation orientation means for science, journalism, and the public is unclear. On the one hand, 567 mutually supportive relationships between scientists and journalists could support high quality, 568 evidence-based science media coverage-particularly given that this orientation is characterized 569 by goals of improving public wellbeing and maximizing societal benefits. On the other, the 570 affiliation orientation could signal a further breakdown of the autonomy of science [Weingart,571 2012] and of journalism [Schulson, 2016]. 572 573 Our study sheds light on the interconnected dimensions and roles that personal, institutional, and 574 systemic factors can play in the mediatization of science. In developing our personas, scientists' 575 career stage, institutional contexts, and pressures from journals emerged as important forces 576 shaping the nature of their relationships with journalists. This echoes findings by Calice et al. 577 [2022] that institutional factors, particularly in regard to tenure and promotion, are crucial in 578 whether or not a scientist will engage with the public. Our study offers a view into how 579 communication professionals at both academic institutions and scholarly journals implicitly and 580 explicitly influence scientists' participation in that competition, with implications for how 581 scientists and journalists work together in the public communication of science. In particular, our 582 study reveals the often overlooked role that scholarly publishing plays in whether and how 583 scientists participate in public engagement. Findings suggest that journals may, in fact, have their 584 own form of mediatization, in which scientists bend toward their norms and practices more than 585 those of journalists. At times, the pressures to publish in high-impact journals discouraged even 586 the most affiliative scientists from discussing their research with journalists before it had been 587 peer reviewed and published. At others, journals facilitated media outreach by preparing press 588 releases, introducing embargoes that allowed more time for scientist-journalist interaction, and 589 arranging interviews to promote new publications. Such facilitation was typically welcomed by 590 scientists, but allowed for a high level of control, from dictating scientist quotations to directing 591 the news cycle of science and potentially narrowing information sources by favoring particular 592 journalists and media organizations [Granado, 2011]. Our study makes several methodological contributions. It introduces a novel methodology that 614 integrates framework analysis and persona development to provide theoretical and practical 615 insights. It also highlights the value of using methods such as talk-alouds or reconstructive 616 interviews to anchor discussions of relatively abstract topics to real-world practices (cf. Barnoy 617 & Reich, 2019, 2022]. For example, the scientists sometimes described their relationships and 618 practices differently when answering general, open-ended questions than when discussing 619 specific news stories during the "talk-aloud" portion of their interviews. We encourage scholars 620 to integrate the two elicitation approaches, as the tensions between the general and the specific 621 that emerged during the interviews added a richness and complexity to the data that allowed us to 622 answer our research questions with greater depth and nuance than would have been possible 623 using either interview method alone. 624 625 This study must be considered in light of its limitations. We conducted research at a time of 626 relative stability during the pandemic; the initial vaccine rollout had been completed and 627 boosters were being administered in the US, Canada, and the UK, where most of the scientists 628 were based. It is likely that the views in this paper would differ from those of scientists 629 interviewed at the onset of the pandemic. Also, it is possible that this relatively high level of 630 mediatization of participants is, in part, an artifact of when the interviews were conducted (i.e., 631 during the COVID-19 pandemic). However, although a few scientists in our sample described 632 increased or altered media relations as a result of the pandemic, the vast majority of scientists we 633 interviewed did not describe altered media relations as a result of the pandemic. The timing 634 allows for us to link the changing practices and norms of journalists to the changing (i.e. post-635 normal) communication context. All scientists had research mentioned in at least one article by a 636 journalist working for a science publication. As such, these scientists may have had a higher 637 degree of mediatization than scientists outside our study. Additionally, all publications in the 638 data set were text-based (not multimedia), English only, and based in the Global North. Future 639 research could expand outside these three categories. 640 641

642
In conclusion, regardless of specific orientation to media logic, most, if not all, of our scientists 643 can be described as relatively mediatized. All understood at least some of the norms, values, and 644 practices of journalists and had been interviewed for news stories. Many also knew how to use 645 their knowledge of media logic to pursue professional, institutional, or societal goals. This 646 suggests an area ripe for future research in order to understand how to best support scientists and 647 journalists in increasingly collaborating to sharing research with the public through the news 648 media. 649 650 651