Bilim İletişimi Bağlamında Bilginin Tiktoklaşması

Abstract

Bilim iletişimi, dijital mecraların etkisiyle geleneksel akademik sınırları aşarak yeniden şekillenmektedir. Bu süreçte ortaya çıkan bilginin tiktoklaşması, bilimsel bilginin toplumsal dolaşımı açısından iki perspektifli paradoksal bir durum yaratmaktadır. Demokratikleştirici perspektif olarak adlandırabileceğimiz birinci kutup, bu dönüşümü bilimin kapalı bir uzmanlık alanından çıkarak geniş kitlelere ulaşması ve bilim insanı ile kamuoyu arasında etkileşimli bir güven inşa edilmesi olarak değerlendirmektedir. Buna karşın duruma eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla yaklaşan ikinci kutup, bilimsel içeriğin hap bilgi ve eğlence birimi (infotainment) haline gelmesini, metodolojik derinliğin kaybolması ve akademik otoritenin aşınması olarak görmekte ve bu durumun bilimsel okuryazarlığın niteliği için bir tehdit oluşturduğunu savunmaktadır. Çalışma, bu iki kutup arasındaki gerilimin üniversiteler bünyesinde kurulacak “Bilim İletişim Ofisleri” ve “Bilim Editörlüğü” sistemiyle aşılabileceği kanaatindedir. Bilim insanının dijital bir rehber olarak konumlandığı bu modelde, kısa formlu içerikler birer keşif vitrini olarak kullanılmalı ancak eş zamanlı olarak vatandaşın metodolojik derinliğe ulaşmasını sağlayacak katmanlı bir bilgi mimarisi sunulmalıdır. Bilginin tiktoklaşması, akademik titizliğin dijital çağın hızıyla harmanlandığı yeni bir anlatı dili olarak yönetilmelidir.

Keywords

• Bilim İletişimi
• Bilim Okuryazarlığı
• Mikro Öğrenme
• Bilişsel Yük
• TikTok
• Tiktoklaşma

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma ile ilgili taraf olabilecek herhangi bir kişi ya da kurum ile finansal ilişkilerimin bulunmadığını dolayısıyla herhangi bir çıkar çatışmasının olmadığını beyan ederim.

The Tiktokization of Information in the Context of Science Communication

Abstract

Science communication is being reshaped by the influence of digital platforms, transcending traditional academic boundaries. The "TikTok-ization" of information in this process creates a paradoxical situation with two perspectives regarding the social circulation of scientific knowledge. The first pole, which we can call the democratizing perspective, views this transformation as science moving beyond a closed field of expertise to reach a wider audience and building interactive trust between scientists and the public. Conversely, the second pole, approaching the situation critically, sees the transformation of scientific content into a unit of information and entertainment (infotainment), the loss of methodological depth, and the erosion of academic authority, arguing that this poses a threat to the quality of scientific literacy. This study believes that the tension between these two poles can be overcome through the establishment of "Science Communication Offices" and "Science Editorial" systems within universities. In this model, where the scientist is positioned as a digital guide, short-form content should be used as a showcase for discovery, but simultaneously, a layered information architecture should be presented to enable citizens to access methodological depth. The “Tiktokification of Information” must be managed as a new narrative language where academic rigor is blended with the speed of the digital age.

Keywords

• Science Communication
• Science Literacy
• Cognitive Load
• Tiktok
• Tiktokification
• Microlearning

Ethical Statement

The author of this article declare that he has no financial relationship with any person or institution that may be a party to this study and therefore declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

1. Adorno, T. W. (2007). Kültür endüstrisi: Kültür yönetimi (The culture industry: Cultural management). (J. M.
2. Bernstein, Ed.; N. Ülner, M. Tüzel & E. Gen, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları (İletişim Publications).
3. Barros, E. (2024). Understanding the influence of digital technology on human cognitive processes: A review. Preprints.
4. Baudrillard, J. (1998). Simülakrlar ve simülasyon (Simularks and simulation). (O. Adanır, Trans.). Dokuz Eylül Yayınları (Dokuz Eylül Publications).
5. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Ed.), In Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). Routledge.
6. Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public understanding of science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
7. Carr, N. (2020). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
8. Doğan, H. (2024). Byung-Chul Han ve acının politikliği (Byung-Chul Han and the politics of pain). Premium e-Journal of Social Sciences (PEJOSS), 8(48), 1426–1434. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12618547

9. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: Implications for policy and evaluation (SISTER Working Paper 2002:1). Swedish Institute for Studies in Education and Research.
10. Foucault, M. (2012). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
11. Foucault, M. (2013). Archaeology of knowledge. Routledge.
12. Franck, G. (2020). Vanity fairs: Another view of the economy of attention. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41532-7
13. Frick, C., Grommes, E. M., & Watanabe, A. (2025). Science communication on TikTok: Toward transformative and post-normal science. Frontiers in Communication, 10, 1491250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1491250
14. Goldhaber, M. H. (1997). The attention economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i4.519
15. Habermas, J. (1971). Technology and science as “ideology”. J. Habermas (Ed.), In Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics (ss. 81–122). Beacon Press.
16. Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
17. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
18. Hug, T. (2005). Microlearning: A new pedagogical challenge (Introductory note). T. Hug, M. Lindner & P. A. Bruck (Eds.), Microlearning. Innsbruck University Press.
19. Lane, J. E. (2022). Meme theory. C. Kavanagh & J. Jong (Eds.), In The Routledge handbook of evolutionary approaches to religion (pp. 337–344). Routledge.
20. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5
21. Lewenstein, B. V., & Brossard, D. (2005). Models of public understanding of science (Draft Report). Cornell University.
22. Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Routledge.
23. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
24. Mouton, J. (1993). Thomas S. Kuhn. J. J. Snyman (Eds.), In Conceptions of social inquiry (pp. 53–75). HSRC Press.
25. Nora, P., & Özcan, M. E. (2006). Hafıza mekânları. (Memory spaces). Dost Kitabevi (Dost Bookstore).
26. Öğütçü, H. (2018, 3 Ağustos). Musical.ly, kardeş uygulaması olan TikTok ile birleşti (Musical.ly has merged with its sister app TikTok), https://egirisim.com/2018/08/03/musical-ly-kardes-uygulamasi-olan-tiktok-ile-birlesti/
27. Postman, N. (2005). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Penguin Books.
28. Roberts, D. A. (2013). Scientific literacy/science literacy. S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Routledge.
29. Sezgin, F. (2008). İslam’da bilim ve teknik (Science and technology in Islam). Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür AŞ. Yayınları (İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality Culture Inc. Publications).
30. Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.
31. Siemens, G., Rudolph, J., & Tan, S. (2020). "As human beings, we cannot not learn": An interview with Professor George Siemens on connectivism, MOOCs and learning analytics. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.15
32. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Stanford University Press.
33. Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele & S. Shi (Ed.), Communicating science in social contexts: In New models, new practices (pp. 119–135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7
34. Van Dam, F., De Bakker, L., Dijkstra, A. M., & Jensen, E. A. (Eds.). (2020). Science communication: An introduction. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/11541
35. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
36. Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2022). Extending the Internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872–1890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603