There’s much more to the thesis. Check out the full text here: researchgate.net/publication/...
And press release in EurekAlert: www.eurekalert.org/news-release...

12/ the end

... requires that journalists adapt to the adaptions of researchers playing their own game just as well the journalists themselves. 11/

While much attention has been paid to the potential negative consequences of mediatization, the thesis brings forth the possibilities of mediatization patterns among scientists that can benefit public interest and support effective science communication. This, however... 10/

Those functional niches on the mediatization spectrum fit different roles that researcher can take (e.g., critic, explainer, advocate) but can vary in the extent to which they benefit the scientific endeavor, the institutions, the researchers, the journalists or the public. 9/

… listed on the image. I conclude that different goals require different adaptions to media logic, leading to researchers taking different roles, each with their characteristic pattern of mediatization, captured with the help of the proposed indicators. 8/

Next to the ESTCube-1 team, I interviewed university decision-makers and other visible scientists. Then I used the comparison of media practices to develop five dimensions in which the relationship of the scientists to media logic produce functional differences. These are… 7/

I saw that the ESTCube-1 team would be a perfect case to explore the process and impacts of mediatization on the micro-level. The thesis sought to understand mediatization process, indicators and impacts. 6/

I also found useful the idea of “mental mediatization by Frank Marcinkowski: As individuals experience “the omnipresence of media” and “what powers of influence the media can exercise” they develop ideas about how media functions. The perceptions then lead to adaptations. 5/

She wrote that in 1977. Today, the pressure on scientists to appear in the media is much greater as this is expected to increase the impact of science in society. The critical perspective, however, warns that intense interactions with media can backfire. 4/

Then I read Rae Goodell’s “The Visible Scientists” and recognized she had captured something essential: „Dramatic changes in science and in communication are forcing changes in science communication, and, in the process, in the kind of scientist who gets communicated.” 3/

As a science journalist, I was able to closely observe the team of ESTCube-1, the first Estonian satellite. I followed their development into a group of high media prominence and could see how they were adopting media logic to gain this visibility. 2/

I would advise researchers to make references accessible in some way but not count on them too much as tools for trust-building. An engaging and empathetic communication style may be more important.

Wasn't planning to write this long. Will return to reading now.

End of thread

So, how to we balance those contradictory expectations? Most often, I have seen that more or less detailed references are provided separately (in the annex of a book or on a website accessible with a special link). This way, references are available but do not interfere with the reading flow.
6/7

Also, references as a signal can be imitated (as we have pseudoscience promoters seen regularly do, using their own sources designed to look like proper science). And figuring out the quality of referenced sources is an advanced skill.
5/7

On the other hand, one can argue that when readability suffers, other signals cannot be effective either. Especially if we target groups that are outside the bubble of people who are already interested in science and are familiar with those signals of trustworthiness.
4/7

The use of references also serves as a demarcation tool. This text has references, therefore it is scientific, therefore more trustworthy than other text you read on the same topic. At the age when trust has become a more prominent goal of #scicomm over explaining, it seems to make sense.
3/7

It made me think.
Although a similar suggestion to drop references is often given to researchers in communication trainings, it meets a lot of resistance. Why? Because references are perceived as a strong signal of scientific validity, another requirement for quality #scicomm.
2/7

Plus, methods and related debates can sometimes make up their own fascinating story. Yes, mostly methods are tedious and many details unnecessary but weaving the necessary ones them into the story is a valuable skill of a science communicator.