TÜRKİYE’DE BİLİM İLETİŞİMİ ÇALIŞMALARI (2010-2023): HAKEMLİ DERGİ MAKALELERİ VE LİSANSÜSTÜ TEZLER ÜZERİNE BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZ

Year 2024, , 132 - 163, 10.07.2024

Erdinç Kaygusuz

https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2024.1.132-163

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın konusu Türkiye’de bilim iletişimini konu edinen lisansüstü tezler ile hakemli dergi makalelerinin bibliyometrik özelliklerinin analizidir. Bilimsel ve teknolojik süreçlere ve politikalara ilişkin her türden içeriğin, özellikle medyalar aracılığıyla dolaşıma girmesiyle bilim kamuoyu ile toplum arasında oluşan iletişimi ve etkileşimi ifade eden bilim iletişimi, dünya genelinde 1980’li yıllarda ilgi duyulmaya başlanan bir konu olarak köklü birikime sahiptir. Türkiye’de ise bu araştırma alanı henüz erken dönemindedir. Bu nedenle literatürdeki temaları, konuya metodolojik yaklaşımları, konunun zaman içerisindeki eğilimlerini, en üretken bilim insanları ile kurumları saptamanın önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bir literatür incelemesi olan bu makalede, bilim iletişimini konu edinen ulusal akademik yazını bibliyometrik özellikler açısından incelemek; böylece alanın temel eğilimlerini ortaya koymak ve kör noktaları açığa çıkarmak amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma doğası gereği retrospektiftir ve uzun süreli öngörülerde bulunmayı hedeflememektedir. Çalışmanın kayda değer birincil bulguları, literatürün bilim iletişiminin medyadaki dolaşımına baskın şekilde odaklandığını ve genellikle yazılı medya içerikleriyle ilgilendiğini göstermektedir. Bu açıdan izleyici araştırmaları gelecekte yapılacak bilimsel çalışmalara kaynaklık edebilir.

Keywords

bilim, bilim iletişimi, bilim iletişimi araştırmaları, bilimsel iletişim, bibliyometrik analiz

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION STUDIES IN TÜRKIYE (2010-2023): A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS ON JOURNAL ARTICLES AND GRADUATE DISSERTATIONS

Abstract

This study analyses the bibliometric characteristics of postgraduate theses and peer-reviewed journal articles focusing on science communication in Türkiye. Science communication, which refers to communication between the scientific community and the public through the circulation of any content regarding scientific and technological processes and policies, especially through the media, attracted much attention worldwide in the 1980s. Nevertheless, this research field is still in its infancy in Türkiye. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the themes, methodological approaches, and trends and identify the most productive researchers and institutions in the literature. The study aims to analyze the nationwide academic literature on science communication in terms of bibliometric attributes, thus revealing trends and blind spots in the field. Hence, the research is inherently retrospective and does not aim to make long-term predictions. The notable key findings of the study show that the literature predominantly focuses on the media circulation of science communication and analyzes written media content such as news or magazine articles. Indeed, there is a need for further studies focusing on audience research.

Keywords

science, science communication, science communication research, scientific communication, bibliometric analysis

References

• Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 2, 102-124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2002.001761
• Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). Science communication training: what are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285-300.
• Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
• Bedir, U. (2020). Bilim iletişimi: Aktörler, mecralar ve sorunlar. Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Bell, D. (2019). The coming of post-industrial society. In Social Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, Second Edition, 805-81. Routledge.
• Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680
• Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 14062-14068. Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513498202
• Bucchi, M. (2017). Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 890-893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517733368
• Callon, M. (1999). The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106
• Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication and culture: Essays on media and society. Routledge.
• Davies, S. R., Halpern, M., Horst, M., Kirby, D. S., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 18(5), https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Lim, W. M. . (2019). Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 18(5). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201
• Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0
• Dursun, Ç. (2010). Dünyada bilim iletişiminin gelişimi ve farklı yaklaşımlar: Toplum için bilimden toplumda bilime. Kurgu, 23(1), 1-31.
• Dursun, Ç., & Dursun, O. (2022). Bilim iletişimi. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
• Erdoğan, İ. (2007). Türkiye’de gazetecilik ve bilim iletişimi: Yapısal özellikler sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi.
• Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M. E., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P.-B., Konopasek, Z., May, S., & Neubauer, C. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxembourg: DG for Research. EUR, 22, 700. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5d0e77c7-2948-4ef5-aec7-bd18efe3c442
• Gascoigne, T., Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (2010). Is science communication its own field? Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), C04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09030304
• Gelmez Burakgazi, S. (2017). Kritik olaylar, politik dokümanlar, raporlar ve araştırmalar ışığında Türkiye’de bilim iletişimi. Selçuk İletişim, 10(1), 232-261.
• Geray, H. (2017). Toplumsal araştırmalarda nicel ve nitel yöntemlere giriş: iletişim alanından örneklerle. Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi.
• Habermas, J. (2015). Kamusallığın yapısal dönüşümü (T. Bora, Çev). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Habermas, J. (2019). İletişimsel eylem kuramı (M. Tüzel, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
• Hall, S. (2017). Temsil: Kültürel temsiller ve anlamlandırma uygulamaları (İ. Dündar, Çev.). İstanbul: Pinhan Yayıncılık.
• Jarreau, P. B., & Porter, L. (2018). Science in the Social Media Age: Profiles of Science Blog Readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 142-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016685558
• Jasanoff, S. (2017). Science and democracy. In R. F. U. Felt, C. Miller, L. Smith-Doerr (Ed.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 259-287). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78. Keng, T.-E., & Cheng, M.-Y. (2023). How do Researchers Use Social Media for Science Communication? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 43(1-2), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676231165654
• Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509104723
• Lavani, S. M. (1981). Bibliometrics: Its Theoretical Foundations, Methods and Applications. Libri, 31, 294-315. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/libr.1981.31.1.294
• Lewenstein, B. (1992). When Science Meets the Public: Proceedings of a Workshop Organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Committee on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, February 17, 1991, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/when_science_meets_the_public.pdf
• Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Introduction—Nanotechnology and the Public. Science Communication, 27(2), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281532
• Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National Research Council, 108(1043), 35-65.
• Logan, R. A. (2001). Science Mass Communication:Its Conceptual History. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002004
• Masuda, Y. (1981). The information society as post-industrial society. World Future Society.
• Medvecky, F. (2018). Fairness in Knowing: Science Communication and Epistemic Justice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1393-1408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9977-0
• Medvecky, F. (2022). Public Understanding of Ignorance as Critical Science Literacy. Sustainability, 14(10), 5920. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5920
• Medvecky, F., & Leach, J. (2019). An ethics of science communication. London: Springer Nature.
• Merigó, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences, 432, 245-268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054
• Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022
• Michael, M. (2002). Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(3), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700302
• Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: privatizing American science. Harvard University Press.
• Mulder, H. A. J., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. S. (2008). The State of Science Communication Programs at Universities Around the World. Science Communication, 30(2), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008324878
• Neuman, W. L. (2017). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri (Ö. Akkaya, Çev). Ankara: Yayın Odası.
• Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: methods and examples. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 1997/01, Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/208277770603.
• Öztunç, M. (2021). Bilim iletişimi: Toplumsal etkileşim ve dijital dönüşüm. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Park, H. W., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Web-science communication in the age of globalization. New Media & Society, 8(4), 629-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806065660
• Pearce, L. D. (2012). Mixed methods inquiry in sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 829-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433798.
• Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of Knowledge Production in Society: Towards a More Political and Social Reading. Minerva, 41(3), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025553311412
• Pouliot, C. (2009). Using the Deficit Model, Public Debate Model and Co-Production of Knowledge Models to Interpret Points of View of Students Concerning Citizens' Participation in Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 49-73.
• Priest, S. (2013). Critical Science Literacy:What Citizens and Journalists Need to Know to Make Sense of Science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5-6), 138-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467614529707
• Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 25, 348.
• Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
• Salmon, R. A., Priestley, R. K., & Goven, J. (2017). The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4
• Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 13585-13592.
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
• Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
• Şenel, A. (Der.), (2017). 50 soruda bilim ve bilimsel yöntem. İstanbul: Bilim ve Gelecek Kitaplığı.
• Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
• Toffler, A. (1981). Üçüncü dalga (A. Saban, Çev.). İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar.
• Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., Shi, S. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). New York & London: Springer.
• Trench, B. (2012). Vital and vulnerable: Science communication as a university subject. In M. C. B. Schiele, S. Shi (Eds.), Science communication in the world practices, theories and trends (pp. 241-258). New York & London: Springer.
• Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), C03.
• Trench, B., & Junker, K. (2001). How scientists view their public communication. Sixth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology. In Sixth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology. Trends in Science Communication today: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the PCST2001 (pp. 1-3).
• Tuna, S., & Arslanoğlu, O. B. (2022). Bilime dokunmak: Bilim iletişimi el kitabı. Abaküs.
• Üsdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. (1993). Türkiye’de örgütler ve yönetim yazını. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 26(2), 73-93. Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 97(5), 261-275.
• Weingart, P., & Joubert, M. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication—causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication, 18(3), Y01.
• Yuan, S., Kanthawala, S., & Ott-Fulmore, T. (2022). “Listening” to Science: Science Podcasters’ View and Practice in Strategic Science Communication. Science Communication, 44(2), 200-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211065068
• Ziman, J. M. (1987). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.