ÜNİVERSİTELERİN BİLİM İLETİŞİMİ ETKİNLİKLERİNİN KURUMSALLAŞTIRILMASI ÜZERİNE YENİ BİR ÖLÇEK ÖNERİSİ

Abstract

Üniversiteler bir yandan öğrenci çekmek ve kurumsal itibarlarını güçlendirmek gibi stratejik amaçlar, diğer taraftan toplumu bilimsel süreçlere dahil etmek ve siyasal karar alma süreçlerine bilimsel temelli katkı sunmak gibi kamusal faydayı önceleyen hedefler çerçevesinde bilim iletişimi etkinliklerinde bulunmaktadırlar. Bu araştırma bilim iletişiminin en önemli kurumsal aktörlerinden biri olan üniversitelerin bünyelerindeki merkezi iletişim birimlerinin bu kapsamdaki rolünü ve gerçekleştirdikleri etkinlikleri konu almaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı ise bilim iletişimi etkinliklerinin üniversitelerde kurumsal olarak nasıl şekillendiğini analiz etmeye dönük bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu kapsamda ölçekte yer alacak bilim iletişimi etkinlikleri literatür taraması, keşfedici mülakatlar ve kart sıralama tekniği gibi tümdengelimsel ve tümevarımsal yöntemler kullanılarak belirlenmiş, pazarlama, halkla ilişkiler, kamusal katılım ve kamu işleri olmak üzere 4 alt-faktör çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçek, istatistiksel olarak ölçüm değişmezliğinin test edilmesi amacıyla Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren devlet, vakıf ve araştırma üniversitelerinin %48’ini temsilen 92 üniversitenin merkezi iletişim birimleri yetkilileri üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Geliştirilen ölçek üniversitelerin hangi bilim iletişimi etkinliklerini gerçekleştirdikleri, bu etkinlikleri hangi iletişim işlevleri altında tanımladıkları ve nasıl organize ettikleri konusunda önemli bulgular sunmaktadır. Bu anlamda üniversitelerin bilim iletişimi etkinliklerini geliştirmeleri konusunda yol göstermektedir. Ölçek mevcut haliyle kullanılabileceği gibi yeni araştırmacıların katkılarıyla da geliştirilebilir niteliktedir.

Keywords

• Bilim İletişimi
• Bilim İletişiminin Kurumsallaşması
• Kamu İletişimi
• Toplumun Bilime Katılımı
• Üniversitelerde Bilim İletişim Etkinlikleri

A NEW SCALE PROPOSAL ON THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES OF UNIVERSITIES

Abstract

Universities manage science communication activities by strategic objectives, such as attracting potential students and improving corporate reputation. On the other hand, they prioritize social benefits that aim to support public engagement in science and to contribute scientific-based political process. This research focuses on the role of science communication activities of the universities’ communication offices which is the one of the most crucial institutional actors. The main purpose of this research is to develop a scale for analyzing the extent of the science communication activities that are institutionalized in universities. In this scope, science communication activities were determined using deductive and inductive methods such as literature review, exploratory interviews, and card sorting technique. They were categorized into the four sub-factors: (marketing, public relations, public affairs, and public engagement). The scale was applied to the central communication units of 92 universities representing 48% of Turkey's 'state' 'foundation' and 'research' universities to test the measurement invariance statistically. The developed scale can be used in future studies that compare the science communication activities of different types of universities in different countries. On the other hand, this scale can guide researchers in this field to better understand the weaknesses and strengths of universities’ activities both methodological and practical.

Keywords

• Science Communication
• Public Engagement in Science
• Initialization of Science Communication
• Public Communication
• Science Communication Events in High Education.

References

1. Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennet, R. and Savani, S. (2009). University marketing directors’ views on the components of a university brand, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 6(11), 11-33Anggreni, P. (2018). The Role of Public Relations as A Management Function in Higher Education. InSHS Web of Conferences . 42, p. 00031). EDP Sciences.
2. Ashcraft, K.L. ,Muhr S. , Rennstam J. , Sullivan K. (2012). Professionalization as a branding activity: Occupational identity and the dialectic of inclusivity-exclusivity, Gender, Work & Organization, 19 (5) (2012), 467-488
3. Autzen, C., Weitkamp, E. (2019). 22. Science communication and public relations: beyond borders: . In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp. 465-484). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
4. Balyer, A., Gündüz, Y. (2011). Türk yükseköğretim yönetim sisteminde YÖK ile yaşanan paradigmatik dönüşüm: Vakıf üniversiteleri çelişkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(31), 69-84.
5. Bauer, M. W.,Bucchi, M. (2008). Journalism, science and society ;science communication between news and public relations, London, New York.: Routledge.
6. Bauer, M.W., Jensen, P (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science. 20(1): 3–11.
7. Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
8. 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.

9. Borchelt, R. (2008) Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio. In: Borchelt, RE, Nielsen, KH (eds) Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 147–158.
10. Borchelt, R., Nielsen, K.H., (2014). Public relations in science: managing the trust portfolio. In: and Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 58–69.
11. Bucchi,M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375–394.
12. Bucchi, M., Trench, B. eds. (2021). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. 3rd ed., 13-14, London, U.K.: Routledge.
13. Burakgazi G., S. (2017). Kritik olaylar, politik dokümanlar, raporlar ve araştırmalar ışığında Türkiye’de Bilim İletişimi. Selçuk İletişim , 10 (1) , 232-261 .
14. Burns, T.W., O'Connor D. J., Stocklmayer S. M. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition, Public Understanding of Science, 12; (2) 183-202.
15. Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS Basic concepts, applications, and programming Multivariate Applications Series, Routledge, New York.
16. Carver, R.B. (2014). Public communication from research institutes: Is it science communication or public relations? Journal of Science Communication, 13(3):C01.
17. Claessens, M. (2014). Research institutions: neither doing science communication nor promoting public relations. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 13 (3).
18. Cornelissen J. (2017). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. 5th edition. SAGE.
19. David, S., Martina, R. (2011). Marketing Communications Mix of UniversitiesCommunication With Students in an Increasing Competitive University Environment, Journal of Competitiveness /Issue 3/2011.58-71
20. Davies, S.R. (2020). University communications as auto-communication: the NTNU ‘Challenge Everything’ campaign, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, p: 227-243.
21. Deserti, A., Rizzo, F., Smallman, M. 2020. “Experimenting with co-design in STI policy making”, Policy Design and Practice, 3 (2), 135-149.
22. Dudo A, Besley JC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One 11(2):e0148867.
23. Egmose, J. (2016). “A Common Sense of Responsibility.” In Commons, Sustainability, Democratization, New York: Routledge.
24. Entradas, M., Bauer, M. M. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771-788.
25. Entradas, M., Marcelino, J., Bauer, M. W., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). Public communication by climate scientists: what, with whom and why?. Climatic change, 154(1), 69-85.
26. Entradas M, Bauer MW, O'Muircheartaigh C, Marcinkowski F, Okamura A, Pellegrini G, vd. (2020) Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235191.
27. Elken, M., Stensaker, B., & Dedze, I. (2018). The painters behind the profile: the rise and functioning of communication departments in universities. Higher Education, 76(6), 1109-1122.
28. Fitzgerald, H. E., K. Bruns, S. T. Sonka, A. Furco, and L. Swanson. (2016). “The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 20: 223–44.
29. Furco, A. (2010). “The Engaged Campus: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to PE.” British Journal of Educational Studies 58: 375–90. doi:10.1080/00071005.2010.527656.
30. Grand A, Davies G, Holliman R, Adams A (2015) Mapping Public Engagement with Research in a UK University. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121874.
31. 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.
32. Gudowsky, N., Peissl, W. (2016). Human centred science and technology—transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as tools for active needs-based innovation governance. Eur J Futures Res 4, 8
33. Hallahan K., Holtzhausen D., Ruler B, Verčič D., Sriramesh K. (2007) Defining Strategic Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-35.
34. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
35. Hoffmann, J., A. Steiner, and J. Otfried. (2008). Unravelling the muddle of services and clients: Political communication consulting. International Journal of Strategic Communication 2(2): 100–114.
36. Hu, L.-t., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
37. Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL8:Structural Equation Modelling with SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: IL:Scientific Software International Inc.
38. Kenny, D. A., McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333–351.
39. Korlén, S., Richter, A., Amer-Wåhlin, I. et al. (2018). The development and validation of a scale to explore staff experience of governance of economic efficiency and quality (GOV-EQ) of health care. BMC Health Serv Res 18, 963.
40. Leshner, A. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science. 299(5609): 977.
41. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M. (2014). The changing rationale of science communication: a challenge to scientific autonomy. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 13 (3).Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., & Madsen, E. B. (2019). Responsible research and innovation in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis. Science and Public Policy, 46(2), 198-209.
42. Leturiondo M. L., Davies S.R. (2018). Responsibility and science communication: scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5:2, 170-185
43. Neresini F. , Bucchi M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 64–79.
44. Ozdemir, S., Koçer, D. N. (2020). 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye’nin Bilim İletişimi Uygulamaları Üzerine Bir Çalışma . Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , TBMM 100. Yıl Özel Sayısı.
45. Paluszek, J. L., (1995). Editorial Note: Defining terms. In L. B. Dennis (ed), Practical public affairs in an era of change: A communications guide for business, government and college, Lanham MD, University Press of America. Peters H.P. (2012). Scientific Sources and the Mass Media: Forms and Consequences of Medialization. In: Rödder S., Franzen M. WP (eds). The Sciences’ Media Connection–Public Communication and its Repercussions. p. 217–39.
46. Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between Science and the Media Revisited: Scientists as Public Communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 14102-14109.
47. Poliakoff, E., Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
48. Presti L. L.,Marino V. (2020). Is online public engagement a new challenge in the university communication plan? A managerial perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 45:7.
49. Rowe D, Brass K. (2008). The uses of academic knowledge: The university in the media. Media, Culture Sociology. 30(5):677–98.
50. Rosseel Y (2012). “lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.
51. Stephenson, Jr. (2011). Conceiving Land Grant University Community Engagement as Adaptive Leadership. Higher Education. 61(1): 95–108.
52. Sütlaş, N. (2010). Eğitim hizmetleri pazarlaması: Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin pazarlama stratejileri konusunda ampirik bir araştırma. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Eğitim Bilimleri Ana Bilim Dalı Eğitim Yönetimi Ve Denetimi Bilim Dalı.(Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
53. Tuncer, B. B. (2020). Türkiye’de Bilim İletişimi Çalışmalarına Genel Bakış ve ODTÜ Bilim İletişimi Çalışmaları Üzerine Değerlendirme. Journal of International Social Research, 13(75).
54. Vincent, B. B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’. Public understanding of science, 23(3), 238-253.
55. Ward, V., P. Howdle, and S. Hamer. (2008). You & Your Body: A Case Study of Bioscience Communication at the University of Leeds. Science Communication 30: 177–208.
56. Watermeyer, R. (2011). Challenges for university engagement in the UK: Toward a public academe? Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 386-410.
57. Weingart P.,Pansegrau P.(1999). Reputation in science and prominence in the media: the Goldhagen debate. Public Understanding of Science. 8(1).
58. Weingart, P. (2017). Is there a hype problem in science? If so, how is it addressed. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication, Jamieson, K. H., Kahan, D., Scheufele, D., A, (Ed.). 111-118. Wicherts, J. M. (2007). Group differences in ıntelligence test performance. Unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Wilkinson, C., K. Bultitude, and E. Dawson. (2011). Oh Yes, Robots! People Like Robots; the Robot People Should Do Something: Perspectives and Prospects in PE with Robotics. Science Communication 33: 367–97.
59. Vásquez C., Sergi V., Cordelier B. (2013). From being branded to doing branding: Studying representation practices from a communication-centered approach, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29 (2),135-146. Yükseköğretim Kurulu, 2019, “Vakıf Yükseköğretim Kurumları 2019”, https://www.yok.gov.tr/HaberBelgeleri/Haber%20%C4%B0%C3%A7erisindeki%20Belgeler/Yay%C4%B1nlar/2019/Vakif_Yuksekogretim_Kurumlari_2019.pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 17.09.2021.
60. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. “YÖK’ten Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Ar-Ge Bütçeleriyle İlgili Önemli Karar”. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2019/vakif_universiteleri_ar_ge_butceleri.aspx, Son Erişim Tarihi: 17.09.2021 Zerfass A., Verčič D., Nothhaft H., Werder K. P. (2018) Strategic Communication: Defining the Field and its Contribution to Research and Practice, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12:4, 487-505,