Medyatikleşmeden Şöhrete Bilimsel Görünürlüğün Gelişim Süreci

Abstract

Bu çalışma, bilim insanlarının medyatikleşen bir toplumda nasıl görünürlük kazandıklarını çeşitli yollarla tanımlayan kavramsal bir model önermektedir. Medyatikleşme teorisi ve şöhret kültürü üzerine yapılan çalışmalardan yola çıkan model, bilim insanlarının isteksiz katılımcılardan bilinçli iletişimcilere ve kamuoyunda tanınan kişilere kadar farklı görünürlük yörüngelerinde nasıl ilerlediklerini açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Model, benimseyenler (adapters), uyarlayıcılar (adopters) ve bağlantılılar (affiliates) gibi önceki tipolojileri temel almakta ve bunları şöhret kültürü perspektifinden genişletmektedir. Katılım stratejileri, medya mantığına uyumları ve farklı görünürlük yörüngeleri boyunca hareketleri temel alınarak sekiz bilim insanı tipi tanımlanmıştır. Her tipoloji, belirleyici özellikleri, motivasyonları ve iletişim davranışları üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Bu yörünge temelli çerçeve, medyatikleşme yoluyla bilim alanını etkileyen sürekli değişen medya ortamına bilim insanlarının tepki vermesini sağlayan kişisel ve kurumsal güçleri ve faktörleri entegre ederek, kamu yaşamında bilimin ve bilim insanlarının rolüne ilişkin tartışmalara katkıda bulunmaktadır. Çalışma, akademisyenler, bilim iletişimcileri ve politika aktörlerinin çağdaş bilim insanlarının medyatikleşmiş kimliklerini anlamaları ve değerlendirmeleri için yararlı bir analitik bakış açısı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Bilimsel şöhret
• bilimin medyatikleşmesi
• şöhret kültürü
• medyatikleşme
• rol belirsizliği
• görünür bilim insanları

Trajectories of Scientific Visibility from Mediatisation to Celebrity

Abstract

This study proposes a conceptual model that maps the diverse pathways through which scientists gain visibility in a mediatised society. Based on mediatisation theory and celebrity studies, the model explains how scientists move along visibility trajectories from reluctant participants to intentional communicators and public figures. The model is grounded in previous typologies such as adapters, adopters, and affiliates and extends them through the lens of celebrity culture. Eight scientist types based on their engagement strategies and alignment with media logic and their movement through different visibility trajectories were elaborated. Each typology is discussed through its defining characteristics, motivations, and communicative behaviours. This trajectory-based framework contributes to debates on the role of science and scientists in public life by integrating personal and institutional factors that shape scientists’ responses to the changing, mediatised media environment. The study provides a useful analytical lens for scholars, science communicators, and policy actors to understand and evaluate the mediatised identities of contemporary scientists.

Keywords

• scientific celebrity
• mediatisation of science
• celebrity culture
• mediatisation
• role ambivalence
• visible scientists

References

1. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Sage Publications.
2. Ampuja, M., Koivisto, J., & Väliverronen, E. (2014). Strong and weak forms of mediatization theory: A critical review. Nordicom Review, 35(June), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0107
3. Aydın, O. Ş. (2008). Celebrity culture: Social change and the role of media [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://search.proquest.com/openview/3756436a9af83fe67d0a29d2bd57ff52/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
4. Battiston, P., Kashyap, R., & Rotondi, V. (2021). Reliance on scientists and experts during an epidemic: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. SSM - Population Health, 13, 100721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100721
5. Brants, K., & van Praag, P. (2017). Beyond media logic. Journalism Studies, 18(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065200
6. Braudy, L. (1997). The frenzy of renown: Fame and its history. Vintage.
7. Braudy, L. (2011). Knowing the performer from the performance: Fame, celebrity, and literary studies. PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 126(4), 1070–1075. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2011.126.4.1070
8. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public's bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572

9. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. Routledge.
10. Bucchi, M. (2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X14558766
11. Bucchi, M. (2018). 'The winner takes it all?' Nobel laureates and the public image of science. Public Understanding of Science, 27(4), 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518764948
12. Burchell, K., Franklin, S., & Holden, K. (2009). Public culture as professional science. BIOS, London School of Economics, September, 1–85. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/BIOS/research/scope/pdf/scope_final_report.pdf
13. 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
14. Calice, M. N., Beets, B., Bao, L., Scheufele, D. A., Freiling, I., Brossard, D., Feinstein, N. W., Heisler, L., Tangen, T., & Handelsman, J. (2022). Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia. PLoS ONE, 17(6 June), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269949
15. Cashmore, E. (2006). Celebrity culture. Routledge.
16. Caulfield, T. (2021). Dr. Oz shouldn't be a senator—or a doctor. Scientificamerican.com. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-oz-shouldnt-be-a-senator-or-a-doctor/
17. Caulfield, T., & Fahy, D. (2016). Science, celebrities, and public engagement. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(4). https://issues.org/perspective-science-celebrities-and-public-engagement/
18. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, 23(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12019
19. Cowan, B. (2016). News, biography, and eighteenth-century celebrity. In P. Bullard (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of eighteenth-century satire. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935338.013.132
20. Driessens, O. (2011). Celebritization: A product of mediatization, personalization and commodification [Conference presentation]. Mediatized Worlds: Culture and Society in a Media Age, Bremen, Germany. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1889223
21. Driessens, O. (2012). The celebritization of society and culture: Understanding the structural dynamics of celebrity culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912459140
22. Driessens, O. (2014). Theorizing celebrity cultures: Thickenings of media cultures and the role of cultural (working) memory. Communications, 39(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0008
23. Dudo, A. (2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12298
24. Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists' prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
25. Dursun, Ç. (2010). Dünyada bilim iletişiminin gelişimi ve farklı yaklaşımlar: Toplum için bilimden toplumda bilime. Kurgu, 23(1), 1–31.
26. Einsiedel, E. (2007). Editorial: Of publics and science. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071289
27. Ekström, M., Fornäs, J., Jansson, A., & Jerslev, A. (2016). Three tasks for mediatization research: Contributions to an open agenda. Media, Culture & Society, 38(7), 1090–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716664857
28. Enebakk, V. (2007). The three Merton theses. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078040
29. Fahy, D. (2010). The celebrity scientists: A collective case study. Dublin City University.
30. Fahy, D. (2015). The new celebrity scientist: Out of the lab and into the limelight. Rowman and Littlefield.
31. Fahy, D. (2018). The laureate as celebrity genius: How Scientific American's John Horgan profiled Nobel Prize winners. Public Understanding of Science, 27(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518762663
32. Fahy, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2021). Scientists in popular culture: The making of celebrities. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242-3
33. Fischer, E. P. (1995). The public misunderstanding of science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 20(4), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1179/isr.1995.20.4.110
34. Gershon, L. (2021). How Einstein became a celebrity. JSTOR Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/how-einstein-became-a-celebrity/
35. Giberson, K., & Artigas, M. (2007). Oracles of science: Celebrity scientists versus god and religion. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310726.001.0001
36. Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. The Sciences, 17(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1977.tb01494.x
37. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (2000). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. Basic Books. http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf
38. Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15(7), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0
39. Hamlyn, B., Shanahan, M., Lewis, H., O'Donoghue, E., Hanson, T., & Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: A study on behalf of a consortium of UK public research funders. December, 1–69. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060033_0.pdf
40. Hepp, A. (2009). Differentiation: Mediatization and cultural change. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 139–157). Peter Lang.
41. Hepp, A. (2015). Medyatikleşen kültürler (Ç. Bozdağ & E. P. Devrani, Trans.; 1st ed.). Dipnot.
42. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 102–131. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0181
43. Hjarvard, S. (2011). The mediatisation of religion: Theorising religion, media and social change. Culture and Religion, 12(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2011.579719
44. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. Routledge.
45. Holmes, S., & Redmond, S. (2010). A journal in celebrity studies. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392390903519016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382911774_MEDIATIZATION_OF_SCIENTISTS_PROCESS_INDICATORS_IMPACT
46. Huang, K. G. (2011). The conflicting "norms" of science in the institutionalization of scientific knowledge. In Beyond the knowledge trap (pp. 165–179). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814343688_0007
47. Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 70, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.04.002
48. Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H., Di, D., & Matthews, K. R. W. (2018). Responding to Richard: Celebrity and (mis)representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516673501
49. Joubert, M. (2019). Beyond the Sagan effect. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 131–132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0694-2
50. Joubert, M., Guenther, L., Metcalfe, J., Riedlinger, M., Chakraborty, A., Gascoigne, T., Schiele, B., Baram-Tsabari, A., Malkov, D., Fattorini, E., Revuelta, G., Barata, G., Riise, J., Schröder, J. T., Horst, M., Kaseje, M., Kirsten, M., Bauer, M. W., Bucchi, M., … Chen, T. (2023). 'Pandem-icons' — exploring the characteristics of highly visible scientists during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Science Communication, 22(01), A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010204
51. Kang, H. D., & Lee, J. J. (2016). Scientific celebrity, competition, and knowledge creation: The case of stem cell research in South Korea. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 39, 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.01.001
52. Kellogg, D. (2006). Toward a post-academic science policy: Scientific communication and the collapse of the Mertonian norms. International Journal of Communications Law & Policy, 11, 1–29. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=900042
53. Khan, M. S., Shahadat, A., Khan, S. U., Ahmed, S., Doukky, R., Michos, E. D., & Kalra, A. (2020). The Kardashian index of cardiologists: Celebrities or experts? JACC: Case Reports, 2(2), 330–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2019.11.068
54. Kissas, A. (2024). Populist everyday politics in the (mediatized) age of social media: The case of Instagram celebrity advocacy. New Media and Society, 26(5), 2766–2785. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221092006
55. Krauss, L. M. (2015). Scientists as celebrities: Bad for science or good for society? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340214563676
56. Krotz, F. (2007). Mediatisierung: Fallstudien zum Wandel von Kommunikation. In M&K. VS Verlag. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2008--106
57. Kupferschmidt, K. (2020, April 28). The coronavirus czar: The COVID-19 pandemic has made German virologist Christian Drosten an unlikely cult figure. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc5095
58. Marcinkowski, F. (2014). Mediatisation of politics: Reflections on the state of the concept. Javnost, 21(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2014.11009142
59. Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect? Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077–2082. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016
60. Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S. L., & Powell, D. (2016). The plight of the celebrity scientist. Scientific American, 315(4), 64–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1016-64
61. Martínez, A., & Mammola, S. (2021). Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1948). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2581
62. Martini, C., Battisti, D., Bina, F., & Consolandi, M. (2022). Knowledge brokers in crisis: Public communication of science during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Epistemology, 36(5), 656–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2116961
63. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
64. Merton, R. K. (2016). Bilimin normatif yapısı. In B. Balkız & V. S. Öğütle (Eds.), Bilim sosyolojisi incelemeleri (2nd ed., pp. 157–170). Doğu Batı.
65. Meyer, G. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629747
66. Moe, H., Nærland, T. U., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2024). Ritual check-in, shocked immersion, regained stability: A sequential typology of news experiences in crisis situations. Media, Culture and Society, 46(2), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231187967
67. Moorhead, L. L., Fleerackers, A., & Maggio, L. (2023). "It's my job": A qualitative study of the mediatization of science within the scientist-journalist relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 22(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22040205
68. Moran, J. (1998). Cultural studies and academic stardom. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/136787799800100105
69. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
70. Olesk, A. (2021). Types of visible scientists. Journal of Communication of Science, 20(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20020206
71. Olesk, A. (2024). Mediatization of scientists: Process, indicators, impact [Doctoral dissertation, Tallinn University]. ETERA. https://www.etera.ee/zoom/202230/view?page=1&p=separate&tool=info
72. Oliveira, T. (2018). Mediatization of science: Reconfiguration of the paradigm of scientific communication and academic work in the digital era. Matrizes, 12(3), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v12i3p101-126
73. Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimation and political relevance. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models (pp. 71–92). Springer.
74. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
75. Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
76. Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & van Mil, M. H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
77. Rödder, S. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the book of life. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507081168
78. Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In M. Franzen, P. Weingart, & S. Rödder (Eds.), The sciences' media connection—Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155–177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8
79. Rodríguez-Amat, J. R., Scolari, C. A., & Fernández, J. L. (2021). Introduction: Resuming the conversation. In Mediatization(s) (pp. 1–13). Intellect Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv36xvs43.3
80. Rojek, C. (2004). Celebrity. Reaktion Books. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203140505-24
81. The Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science [Report]. Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf
82. Russel, N. (2010). Communicating science: Professional, popular, literary. Cambridge University Press.
83. Schäfer, M. S. (2011). Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: A review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology Compass, 5(6), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00373.x
84. Schäfer, M. S. (2014). The media in the labs, and the labs in the media: What we know about the mediatization of science. Mediatization of Communication, October, 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110272215.571
85. Schäfer, M. S., & Fähnrich, B. (2020). Communicating science in organizational contexts: Toward an "organizational turn" in science communication research. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2020-0034
86. Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323104040696
87. Shumway, D. R. (1997). The star system in literary studies. PMLA, 112(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/463056
88. Thimm, C., Anastasiadis, M., & Einspänner-Pflock, J. (2018). Media logic or media logics? An introduction to the field. In C. Thimm, M. Anastasiadis, & J. Einspänner-Pflock (Eds.), Media logic(s) revisited: Modelling the interplay between media institutions, media technology and societal change (pp. 1–8). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1_1
89. Trench, B. (2012). Vital and vulnerable: Science communication as a university subject. Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_16
90. Turner, G. (2014). Understanding celebrity (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
91. Väliverronen, E. (2001). Popularisers, interpreters, advocates, managers and critics. Nordicom Review, 22(2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0353
92. Väliverronen, E. (2006). Expert, healer, reassurer, hero and prophet: Framing genetics and medical scientists in television news. New Genetics and Society, 25(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770601032742
93. Väliverronen, E. (2021). Mediatisation of science and the rise of promotional culture. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 129–146). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242-8
94. Vuković, S., & Krapić, N. (2025). A populist, influencer, and religious politician. Populism, 8(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-bja10071
95. Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00096-1
96. Weingart, P. (2012). The lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In M. Franzen, P. Weingart, & S. Rödder (Eds.), The sciences' media connection—Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 17–32). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_2
97. Ziman, J. (2003). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.