Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerde Bilim İletişiminin Kurumsallaşması: Üniversitelerin Merkezi İletişim Birimleri Üzerine Nitel Bir Analiz

Öz

Güncel politika belgelerinde ve akademik yazında, bilim ve toplum arasındaki iletişim ve etkileşim süreçlerinde kurumsal aktörlerin, özellikle de üniversitelerin önemi giderek daha fazla vurgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de üniversitelerin merkezi iletişim birimleri tarafından yürütülen bilim iletişimi faaliyetlerini, eğer mevcut ise üniversiteler içinde iletişim birimi dışında kalan diğer alt birimlerin hangi bilim iletişim faaliyetlerini yürüttüklerini, iletişim birimlerinin bilim iletişiminde önceliklerini, motivasyonlarını ve bilim iletişiminin kurumsallaşmasında karşılaşılan sorunları ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Nitel bir araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak, Türkiye’deki 20 devlet ve vakıf üniversitesinden üst düzey yetkililerle yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmış ve kodlanan verilerin analizinde tematik analiz yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, kamu ve vakıf üniversiteleri arasında dikkate değer farklılıkları göstermekle birlikte, merkezi iletişim birimlerinin Halkla İlişkiler ve Pazarlama olarak sınıflandırılan rutin ve tek yönlü bilim iletişimi faaliyetlerine öncelik verdiğini, diyalog içeren toplumun bilime katılımını ve kamusal faaliyetleri içeren etkinliklerin ise daha sınırlı ölçüde yürütüldüğünü göstermektedir. Üniversitelerin bilim iletişiminin ardındaki temel motivasyonun ise kamu yararı yaratmaktan ziyade belirli kurumsal stratejik hedefleri karşılamak olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, üniversitelerde bilim iletişiminin kurumsallaşması, iletişim ofislerindeki personel ve bütçe kısıtları, kurumsal özerklik eksikliği ve yükseköğretim sisteminin yasal düzenlemeleri kapsamında bu birimlerin görev ve yetkilerinin tanımlanmamış olması nedeniyle engellenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilim İletişimi
• Üniversiteler
• Kamusal Katılım
• Kurumsallaşma
• Türkiye

Institutionalization of Science Communication in Universities of Türkiye: A Qualitative Analysis of Central Communication Units

Öz

In contemporary policy documents and academic literature, the significance of institutional actors, particularly universities, in the communication and interaction processes between science and society is increasingly emphasized. This study aims to explore the science communication activities carried out by central communication units of universities in Türkiye, the distribution of these activities among sub-units within universities, the priorities and motivations for such activities, and the problems encountered in the institutionalization of science communication. Using a qualitative research method, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with senior officials from 20 public and foundation universities in Türkiye, and a thematic analysis approach was utilized to analyze the coded data. The results indicate that while there are noteworthy differences between public and foundation universities, central communication units prioritize routine and one-way science communication activities categorized as PR and Marketing, while Public Engagement and Public Affairs activities involving dialogue are carried out to a more limited extent. The primary motivation behind universities’ science communication is meeting specific institutional strategic goals rather than creating public benefit. Furthermore, institutionalizing science communication in universities has been hindered by personnel and budget constraints in communication offices, the lack of institutional autonomy, and undefined duties and authorities of these units under the legal regulations of the higher education system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science Communication
• Universities
• Public Engagement
• Institutionalization
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R & D spillovers and recipient firmsize. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2109888
2. Altheide, D., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. (2008). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 127–151). Guilford Press.
3. Aquilani, B., & Lovari, A. (2008). The “new season” of university communication between institutionalization processes and strategic target relationships: An empirical analysis of internet web sites of Italian universities. In Invernizzi, E., Falconi, T. M., & Romenti, S. (Eds.), Institutionalizing public relations and corporate communication: Proceedings of Euprera 2008 Milan Congress (pp. 1132–1220). Pearson Educaiton Australia.
4. Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases—The new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030302
5. Autzen, C., & Weitkamp, E. (2019). 22. Science communication and public relations: Beyond borders. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Eds.), Science communication (pp. 465–484). De Gruyter Mouton.
6. Bauer, M. W. (2008). Paradigm change for science communication: Commercial science needs a critical public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 7–25). Springer.
7. Bauer, M. W., & Gregory, J. (2008). From journalism to corporate communication in post- war Britain. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 45–64). Routledge.
8. Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/096.366.2510394457

9. Bedir, U. (2020). Yeni medya ve bilim iletişimi: Türkiye’de çevrimiçi bilim anlatıcılığı. In U. Bedir (Ed.), Bilim iletişimi: Aktörler, mecralar ve sorunlar (pp. 158–206). Eğitim Yayınevi.
10. Bedir, U., & Öztunç, M. (2023). Türkiye’de bilim insanlarının kamusal iletişim etkinlikleri ve buna etki eden faktörlerin analizi. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 10(2), 649–669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17680/ erciyesiletisim.1273610
11. Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(1), 14–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583.883.2013.8522 37
12. Borchelt, R. E., & Nielsen, K. H. (2014). Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014). Science communication research: Themes and challenges In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 17–30). Routledge.
14. Burakgazi, S. G. (2017). Kritik olaylar, politik dokümanlar, raporlar ve araştırmalar ışığında Türkiye’de bilim iletişimi. Selçuk İletişim, 10(1), 232–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.303022
15. Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. University of Westminster. Retrieved September 04, 2023, from https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/ q17q1/factors-affecting-public- engagement-by-researchers-literature-review
16. Carver, R. B. (2014). Public communication from research institutes: Is it science communication or public relations? Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030301
17. Çelik, Z. (2014). Yükseköğretim sistemlerinin yönetimi ve üniversite özerkliği: Küresel eğilimler ve Türkiye örneği. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1, 18–27.
18. Chapleo, C. (2011). Exploring rationales for branding a university: Should we be seeking to measure branding in UK universities? Journal of Brand Management, 18, 411–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.53
19. Claessens, M. (2014). Research institutions: Neither doing science communication norpromoting ‘public’relations. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), 1–5. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030303
20. Çoban, S., & Tüfekçi, S. (2015). Kurumsal iletişim bağlamında Türkiye’deki devletüniversitelerinin web sayfaları üzerine bir inceleme. Journal of Turkish Studies, 10(6),387–402. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/ TurkishStudies.8117
21. Duke, S. (2002). Wired science: Use of world wide web and e-mail in science publicrelations. Public Relations Review, 28, 311–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00135-2
22. Dursun, Ç. (2010). Dünyada bilim iletişiminin gelişimi ve farklı yaklaşımlar: Toplum için bilimden toplumda bilime. Kurgu Online International Journal of Communication Studies, 23(1), 1–31.
23. Dursun, O. (2021). Bilimin krizinin kamusal temsilkcisi olarak medya: Bilim, medya ve kamu: Hepsi pozitif. In Ç. Dursun & O. Dursun (Eds.), Bilim iletişimi (pp. 177–206). Siyasal Kitabevi.
24. Engwall, L. (2008). The university: A multinational corporation?, Retrieved September 04, 2023,fromhttps:// portlandpress.com/DocumentLibrary/Umbrella/Wenner%20Gren/Vol%2084/Chapter_02.pdf e41
25. Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. M. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771–788. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/096.366.2516633834
26. Entradas, M., Bauer, M. W., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., Besley, J., Massarani, L., Russo, P., & Dudo, A. (2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS One, 15(7), 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191
27. Erdoğan, İ. (2007). Türkiye’de gazetecilik ve bilim iletişimi: Yapısal özellikler, sorunlar veçözüm önerileri. Gazi Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi.
28. European Research Advisory Board. (2007). European research advisory board final report: Research and societal engagement. Retrieved September 04, 2023, from https://www.europeansources.info/record/?p=407271
29. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160.940.690600500107
30. Gardner, C. J., Thierry, A., Rowlandson, W., & Steinberger, J. K. (2021). From publications to public actions: The role of universities in facilitating academic advocacy and activism in the climate and ecological emergency. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.679019
31. Gökler, K., & Onay, A. (2020). Üniversitelerin kurumsal iletişim aracı olarak Instagram kullanımı: Vakıf üniversitelerinin Instagram sayfaları üzerine betimsel bir içerik analizi. Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35, 311–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.584419
32. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2021.114523
33. Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35, 758–779. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/107.554.7013487513
34. Koloğlu, O. (1997). Halka doğru bilim: Türkiye’de bilim gazeteciliği. Türk Bilim TarihiKurumu Yayınları.
35. Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20, 441–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169
36. Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.05.010
37. Lo Presti, L., Maggiore, G., & Marino, V. (2020). Mobile chat servitization in the customer journey: From social capability to social suitability. The TQM Journal, 32(6), 1139–1158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM- 10-2019-0241
38. Marcinkowski, F., & Kohring, M. (2014). The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. JCOM, 13(03), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030304
39. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S., & Friedrichsmeier, A. (2014). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56–80. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/107.554.7013494022
40. McCowan, T., Leal Filho, W., & Brandli, L. (2021). Universities facing climate change and sustainability. The Global University Leaders Council Hamburg. Retrieved September 04,2023,fromhttps://discovery. ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10142640/1/GUC%20Study_ Universities %20facing%20Climate%20Change%20 and%20Sustainability.pdfe42Institutionalization of Science Communication in Universities of Türkiye: A Qualitative Analysis of Central Communication Units
41. Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Nielsen, M., & Ravn, T. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences. Science and Public Policy, 39, 741–750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/ scs092
42. Melewar, T. C., Foroudi, P., Dinnie, K., & Nguyen, B. (2018). The role of corporate identity management in the higher education sector: An exploratory case study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(4), 337– 359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527.266.2017.1414073
43. Nelkin, D. (1987). AIDS and the social sciences: Review of useful knowledge and researchneeds. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 9(5), 980–986.
44. 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. DOI: https://doi. org/77/096.366.2505XXXXXX
45. Ozdemir, Ş., & Koçer, D. N. (2020). 21. yüzyılda Türkiye’nin bilim iletişimi uygulamaları üzerine bir çalışma. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(Özel Sayı), 373–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18026/ cbayarsos.685206
46. Öztunç, M. (2020). Bir meslek olarak bilim gazeteciliği: Fırsatlar ve sorunlar. In U. Bedir(Ed.), Bilim iletişimi: Aktörler, mecralar ve sorunlar (pp. 114–133). Eğitim Yayınevi.
47. Paulissen, T., Fraussen, B., & Van Hecke, S. (2022). How higher education institutions seek to influence EU policymaking. Retrieved September 04, 2023, from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/676817
48. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Interactions with the Mass Media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1157780
49. Polino, C., & Castelfranchi, Y. (2012). The communicative turn in contemporary techno- science: Latin American approaches and global tendencies. In B. Schiele, M. Claessens, & S. Shi (Eds.), Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends (pp. 3–17). Springer.
50. Roberson, T. (2020). On social change, agency, and public interest: What can science communication learn from public relations? Journal of Science Communication, 19(2), 1–11. DOI: https://doi. org/10.22323/2.19020401
51. Rowe, D., & Brass, K. (2008). The uses of academic knowledge: The university in the media. Media, Culture & Society, 30(5), 677–698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016.344.3708094015
52. Rowe, D., & Brass, K. (2011). “We take academic freedom quite seriously”: How university media offices manage academic public communication. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(1), 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1386/mcp.7.1.3_1
53. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2020-0034
54. Süerdem, A., Öztunç, M., & Bedir, U. (2023). Üniversitelerin bilim iletişimi etkinliklerinin kurumsallaştırılması üzerine yeni bir ölçek önerisi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(86), 362–390. DOI: https://doi. org/10.17755/esosder.1037573
55. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 349, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015 e43
56. Utma, S. (2022). Gelişen dünyada bilim gazeteciliği ve sorunlar: Magazinleşen habercilik bağlamında bilim gazeteciliğine yönelik kuramsal bir değerlendirme. International Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(43), 1334–1341. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ ASRJOURNAL.65801
57. Varga, A. (2001). Universities and regional economic development: Does agglomeration matter? In B. Johansson, C. Karlsson, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), Theories of endogenous regional growth: Lessons for regional policies (pp. 345–367). Springer.
58. Vogler, D., & Schäfer, M. (2020). Growing influence of university pr on science news coverage? A longitudinal automated content analysis of university media releases and newspaper coverage in Switzerland, 2003- 2017. International Journal of Communication, 14, 3143–3164.
59. Watermeyer, R., & Lewis, J. (2017). Why universities and academics should bother with public engagement. The Conversation. Retrieved September 04, 2023, from https://theconversation.com/why-universities-and- academics-should-bother-with-public-engagement-72550
60. Watermeyer, R., & Lewis, J. (2018). Institutionalizing public engagement through research in UK universities: Perceptions, predictions and paradoxes concerning the state of the art. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1612–1624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075.079.2016.1272566
61. Weingart, P. (2017). Is there a hype problem in science? If so, how is it addressed. In K. Hall Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 111–118). Oxford University Press.