Informal Learning Through Science Media Usage

Abstract

This article reviews current research on informal science learning through news media. Based on a descriptive model of media-based science communication we distinguish between (a) the professional routines by which journalists select and depict scientific information in traditional media and (b) the psychological processes that account for how media recipients select, process and integrate such information. We argue that science literacy and media literacy in laypersons can be promoted by combining insights from the research on mass media production, laypersons’ reception processes and the interplay of both. Moreover, we point out potential obstacles and biases in the process of science communication and suggest strategies to prevent such problems using media-based elements of science communication. Focusing on “traditional” news media in the main parts of the article, we conclude with reflections on how online sources might change the interplay between information demand and supply.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the anonymous reviewers as well as the editors of this special issue for their extraordinarily helpful comments.

FUNDING

"Our work on this paper was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG) to Michaela Maier (MA 2244/4-1 and 2244/4-2) and Tobias Rothmund (RO 4248/1-1 and 4248/1-2), as well as a grant from The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS) to Michaela Maier.

Notes

¹ Journalism studies are one of the very traditional and active fields in communication research, and so is research on science journalism within science communication. There is a huge amount of relevant papers published. Due to space restrictions and the focus of this special issue, we can't provide a complete literature summary on science journalism here, and therefore decided to report only empirical data that was collected since the year 2000. The significant changes in the media market and organizations may add to the plausibility of this decision, and we apologize for this systematic limitation.