Content uploaded by Bienvenido León
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bienvenido León on Apr 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Communicating Science
and Technology Through
Online Video
Online video’s unique capacity to reach large audiences makes it a powerful
tool to communicate science and technology to the general public. The
outcome of the international research project “Videonline,” this book
provides a unique insight into the key elements of online science videos,
such as narrative trends, production characteristics, and issues of scientifi c
rigor. It offers various methodological approaches: a literature review,
content analysis, and interviews and surveys of expert practitioners to
provide information on how to maintain standards of rigour and technical
quality in video production.
Bienvenido León is Associate Professor of Science Journalism and Television
Production at the University of Navarra, Spain, and has published over 60
peer-reviewed articles and 21 books as author or editor, including El medio
ambiente en el nuevo universo audiovisual (UOC Editorial) and Science on
Television: The Narrative of Scientifi c Documentary (Pantaneto Press).
Michael Bourk is Associate Professor of Mass Communication at the
Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait, and has published 17
peer-reviewed journal articles or contributions, several book chapters, and
the book Universal Service? Telecommunications Policy in Australia and
People with Disabilities (Tomw Communications).
Routledge Focus on Communication Studies
A Relational Model of Public Discourse
The African Philosophy of Ubuntu
Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian
Communicating Science and Technology Through Online Video
Researching a New Media Phenomenon
Edited by Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
Communicating Science
and Technology Through
Online Video
Researching a New Media Phenomenon
Edited by Bienvenido León
and Michael Bourk
First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-48349-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-05458-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
1 Investigating Science-Related Online Video 1
BIENVENIDO LEÓN AND MICHAEL BOURK
1.1. Science Communication in the Digital
Environment 1
1.2. The Videonline Project 6
1.3. Summary of Main Findings 7
2 An Overview of Science Online Video: Designing a
Classification of Formats 15
JOSÉ ALBERTO GARCÍA-AVILÉS AND ALICIA DE LARA
2.1. Development of Online Video 15
2.2. Online Video, a Tool to Communicate Science 17
2.3. Effectiveness of Scientific Online Video 18
2.4. Classification of Online Scientific Video
Formats 20
2.5. Conclusion 24
3 Producing Science Online Video 28
MARÍA CARMEN ERVITI
3.1. Producers 29
3.2. Scientists 31
3.3. Format 33
3.4. Objectives 36
3.5. New Opportunities for Science Video Production 37
Contents
vi Contents
4 When Science Becomes Controversial 41
MARÍA CARMEN ERVITI, JOSÉ AZEVEDO AND
MÓNICA CODINA
4.1. Climate Change 42
4.2. Vaccines 43
4.3. Nanotechnology 44
4.4. Results 45
4.5. In Search of the Keys to Controversy 50
5 New and Old Narratives: Changing Narratives of
Science Documentary in the Digital Environment 55
LLOYD S. DAVIS AND BIENVENIDO LEÓN
5.1. Introduction 55
5.2. Empirical Study 56
5.3. New Narratives for a New Age? 58
6 Rigour in Online Science Videos: An Initial Approach 64
MIQUEL FRANCÉS AND ÀLVAR PERIS
6.1. New Challenges for Scientific Dissemination 64
6.2. Scientific Rigour in Audiovisual Science
Communication 66
6.3. Empirical Study 69
6.4. Discussion and Conclusions 72
7 Audiovisual Formats and Content in University
Corporate Communication: Lost Branding Opportunities? 77
JOAN ENRIC ÚBEDA AND GERMÁN LLORCA-ABAD
7.1. Introduction 77
7.2. Videos and Organisations 79
7.3. Methodology 81
7.4. Results and Discussion 84
7.5. Conclusions 86
8 Entertainment in Science: Useful in Small Doses 90
MICHAEL BOURK, BIENVENIDO LEÓN AND LLOYD S. DAVIS
8.1. Science as Entertainment 90
8.2. Empirical Study 98
8.3. A Look Into the Future 102
Contents vii
9 Framing in Climate Change Videos 107
BIENVENIDO LEÓN, MAXWELL BOYKOFF, JUHI HUDA
AND CARMEN RODRIGO
9.1. Frames in Climate Change Representation 108
9.2. Main Themes 112
9.3. Gain vs. Loss 113
9.4. Conclusion 115
10 Conclusion: Innovation and Future Challenges 120
MICHAEL BOURK AND BIENVENIDO LEÓN
10.1. Innovation in Science Online Video 120
10.2. Some Challenges Ahead 124
Appendix 1 Notes on the Research Method 129
Contributors 136
Index 139
Investigating Science-Related
Online Video
Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
1
The new communication paradigm that has been created by the Internet has
opened the door to novel and fascinating possibilities for the public com-
munication of science and technology, since radically different relationships
are being established among scientists, communicators and the public. Fur-
thermore, the Internet makes it possible to create multimedia texts, in which
video plays a key role, and also makes it possible to create new narrative
forms that have become tools of great effi cacy to communicate science.
Science online video has adopted many different styles, formats and
genres, creating a variety of categories that are difficult to classify and that
have virtually no creative limits. As a consequence, this environment offers
a set of new opportunities to develop efficient mechanisms to communicate
science to the public, enabling a more active relationship of citizens with
science.
1.1. Science Communication in the Digital
Environment
There is little doubt about the increasing relevance of science and technol-
ogy in our daily lives. It provides solutions for everyday problems and cre-
ates knowledge that helps to make decisions to improve our quality of life.
Public perception of the main scientifi c issues has acquired great importance
for governments and institutions ruling our society, and citizens must under-
stand science in order to adapt to an increasingly scientifi c and technological
environment. But this is not possible without the contribution of scientists,
who must align their research with the challenges of the society where they
belong and make their results comprehensible to the public.
However, science does not always play the role it should in social debates
on those topics in which the scientific point of view is a fundamental refer-
ence. For example, scientific knowledge about climate change has often
been displaced by political and economic considerations.
2 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
We live in a time of change—if not a change of time—where citizens are
adopting a more active role in all areas of social action, including science.
The traditional scientific process was completed inside the labs and after-
wards spread into the rest of society, with varying degrees of success. But
this model gave way to that of ‘science with society’, whereby participation
becomes a fundamental requirement.
The participatory model of science relies on communication as a funda-
mental element. Communication is no longer a goodwill concession from
the scientist to society but a core requirement that provides oil for the new
mechanism to work.
But this new model is possible only because communication tools have
multiplied and acquired huge power. The digital environment has provided
effective tools that are accessible and easy to use, and the Internet has pre-
cipitated a new paradigm of public communication that situates the user in
the centre of the process ( Lister et al., 2009 ), while the traditional deficit
model of science communication has given way to the participatory model
(Miller, 2001). This has meant that ‘an important paradigm shift is taking
place within the scientific community that involves a movement away from
a singular focus on science literacy as both the culprit and the solution to
conflicts over science in society’ (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009: 1776–1777).
The Internet has radically modified the relationship among the actors
involved in the process of science communication (Weigold & Treise, 2004).
Scientists can now communicate directly with the general public without the
intermediation of the mass media or the traditional limitations of time and
space and within a rich multimedia environment that multiplies the options
to communicate science.
The Rise of Online Video
We are immersed in the visual culture of the homo videns era ( Sartori, 1998 ).
Television and the other audiovisual media may even be transforming our
way of thinking, which has been traditionally based on a written culture.
Since television became a popular medium in the 1960s, moving images
have been an essential element of current communication, but the Internet
has increased the relevance of video even further, to a point diffi cult to
imagine only a few years ago.
Online video consists of any form of audiovisual content that can be
viewed through the Internet. Internet video is produced in several formats,
the most notable being AVCHD, FLV and MP4. It includes videos hosted
on YouTube and other aggregators, such as Youku, Hulu or Vimeo; films
and series on demand; video produced for mobile and tablet consumption;
videoconferences, video blogs and other formats. The consumption of video
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 3
on the Internet has grown exponentially, thus ending the monopoly that the
television channels had on the production of audiovisual content.
Online video has grown exponentially in the last few years: it accounted
for 70% of all Internet global traffic in 2015, and it is expected to grow
to 82% in 2020. This means that video traffic will have increased almost
100-fold from 2005 to 2020. It is difficult to imagine such a huge amount
of video, but the following fact is helpful: it would take an individual more
than 5 million years to watch the number of hours that will circulate in the
Internet each month in 2020 ( Cisco, 2016 ).
According to industry data, online video penetration is near universal in
most leading online markets; 62% of world Internet users view online video
every day ( eMarketer, 2017 ). Google sites, including YouTube, are currently
attracting over 1 billion unique users, and mobile video traffic is estimated
to amount to 1.70 million per month ( YouTube, 2017 ). A number of fea-
tures define the online video environment, in which not only an exponential
growth is observed but also a diversity of authorship.
Television companies are still the primary producers of professional-
quality news content and generate the majority of online news videos,
although they face increasing competition from YouTube ( Peer and Ksiazek,
2011 ). In the case of news programmes, content is ‘repackaged’ on different
platforms through ‘adaptation or translation’ processes ( Erdal, 2009 ) and
through audiovisual aggregators such as YouTube. For instance, it is com-
mon to find in social media short videos of fragments of programmes that
reproduce a specific moment with a special meaning.
This overwhelming growth is related to several developments that digi-
tal technologies have propelled. The fact that images are recorded, stored
and transmitted on a digital medium has many implications that go beyond
technology itself. Audiovisual production tools have experienced a long
process of democratisation that the digital era has accelerated by blurring
the frontiers between professional and amateur equipment. For example,
nowadays mobile phones are equipped with cameras that can record high-
quality video.
There exists a new audiovisual participatory culture that is based on
three pillars (Sørenssen, 2008: 51–52). Firstly, video production tools have
become market products that are accessible to many. Secondly, equipment
has become smaller, lighter and easier to use. Thirdly, the web has provided
a powerful accessible distribution medium that opens any production to a
virtually unlimited audience.
In the second decade of the 21st century, video consumption on social
networks has become a fundamental contributor to the rise of online video.
In the area of news, much of the growth of video consumption is related
to social media. News media are aware of this fact and now use social
4 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
networks as a fundamental medium for audience traffic. One of the main
players in this area is Facebook, a platform that has increased video in its
newsfeeds and has reported 8 billion daily video views in November 2015
(RISJ, 2017). But the rise of video in this platform is not only related to
news: in 2017, more than 100 million hours of video content were watched
on Facebook daily ( Wordstream, 2017 ).
The growth of online video is also driven by the current market logic,
since video is a crucial element in attracting advertising. For example, in the
area of news, research indicates that ‘publishers and technology platforms
are pushing online news video hard for commercial reasons’ Kalogeropou-
los et al., 2016 : 7).
B eyond technology and market factors, the rise of online video is linked
to a new ‘participatory culture’ that the Internet has fostered. This term is
often used to explain how more accessible technologies have propelled a new
relationship between media industries and consumers, but it is also associ-
ated with popular culture and participatory democracy. In summary, we are
immersed in a new cultural paradigm where individuals take an active role in
the production, dissemination and interpretation of cultural goods, a role that
is related to the ‘Do It Yourself’ ideology ( Jenkins, 2006 ) and also to the
blurring of lines between producers and audiences ( Bruns, 2008 ).
Perhaps the most outstanding example of this new audiovisual culture
is YouTube, a platform where ‘participatory culture is not a gimmick or
a sideshow; it is absolutely core business’ ( Burgess and Green, 2009 : 6).
This site was created in 2005 by three former employees of the electronic
commerce company PayPal. One year later, it was acquired by Google Inc. for
$1650 million. In 2017, YouTube was the second most popular site globally,
below only Google (Alexa, 2017), with over a billion users who generate
billions of views ( YouTube, 2017 ).
YouTube is a hybrid platform shared by two different kinds of content:
user-generated content and professionally generated content. Content pro-
duced by users was the basis of the early success of YouTube, turning ama-
teur video into a huge commercial success that worries television executives
(Strangelove, 2010: 40).
But in only a few years, TV networks and distributors became aware of the
potential of this site and introduced abundant professionally generated content.
However, in spite of this institutionalisation process, YouTube has created a
new visual culture based on the original amateur aesthetics, which some reckon
to be ‘the dominant form of early twenty-first-century videography’ ( Lister et al.,
2009 : 227). As Kim (2012 ) points out, these videos set the tone and format of
online video: ‘short, mostly humorous and easily accessible’ (p. 54).
However, the Internet has developed multiple forms of online video, rang-
ing from a mere diffusion of content created for television or cinema that
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 5
follows the traditional formats, to radically new forms especially designed
to be delivered online, thus creating a variety that is difficult to classify.
Based on the new participatory paradigm, the Internet has shown an enor-
mous potential to create innovative forms and styles that may be designed
either to serve a small group of potential users or to reach a large audience.
Sometimes innovation is the way the new producers (either amateur or pro-
fessional) try to distinguish themselves from the traditional content produc-
ers, in order to attract online users, especially young people. This variety
of forms and styles offers an enormous potential to communicate science.
Science Online Video
In some countries, the Internet is one of the leading sources of scientifi c
information for most citizens. For example, in 2014, 47% of Americans
cited the Internet as their primary source of S&T news, up from 9% in 2001,
while television was cited by 28% ( National Science Board, 2016 : 36). In
Spain, in 2016, 37.7% of citizens said the Internet was the fi rst recalled
source for science information, ahead of television (36.4%) ( Fecyt, 2017 ).
Therefore, given its relative predominance in the online environment, video
has become a tool of crucial importance to communicate science to society.
In addition, images can play an important role in spreading scientific
information to the public, in several ways. Firstly, images can work as icons
that may get into people’s minds to illustrate concepts that may be more dif-
ficult to understand in a written medium. Research indicates that images can
work as a valuable tool to facilitate comprehension of difficult information.
Compared to words, images are more effective in transmitting information
that can later be remembered ( Korakakis et al., 2009 ).
Besides, moving images can transmit emotions that may involve the
viewer and promote engagement with scientific issues for a wide group of
citizens. This becomes crucial in many scientific issues, since science needs
to address audiences that are used to receiving high-impact visual materials
on other topics that are constantly raised by the media. Therefore, images
may be necessary if science has to attract citizens in a highly competitive
attention market, dominated by commercial and entertainment content. For
example, environmental campaigns can benefit from the impact of images,
in order to inform and promote behavioural change in some citizens who
would not be easily reached with other tools.
As explained earlier in this section, production technology has become
more affordable and easy to use. This includes the tools to produce computer-
generated images that can be effective to communicate scientific informa-
tion. Very often, science communicators need to explain processes that are
difficult to perceive by the naked eye or the camera. But animation can help
6 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
to overcome this difficulty, especially when it becomes accessible to ama-
teur producers. These developments have helped science to become more
seductive and more competitive as a visual spectacle.
Online video is considered to be an accessible tool to spread scientific
information to the general public ( Sugimoto and Thelwall, 2013 ; Thelwall
et al., 2012 ; Young, 2008 ), offering a new opportunity for scientists to take
part in the public discussion in an increasingly visual culture. But not all
visual representations of science have the same efficacy or similar beneficial
results. For example, in the case of climate change communication, research
shows that some images have become icons that have helped to build a
socially shared reference. In contrast, other images, like that of a polar bear
on an ice platform, have contributed to create the sense that climate change
is a remote process with little connection to the daily lives of most people
(Heras and Meira, 2014: 35).
In spite of its huge potential, science online video is still scarcely
researched. Some studies have focused on online video about specific sci-
entific topics like chemistry ( Christensson and Sjöström, 2014 ), environ-
mental sciences (e.g. Jaspal et al., 2014 ; Notley et al., 2013 ; Slawter &
TreeHuggerTV, 2008; Uldam and Askanius, 2013 ) and medical issues (e.g.
Murugiah et al., 2011 ; Sood et al., 2011 ;; Yoo and Kim, 2012 ).
Welbourne and Grant (2016) provide the first overview of science
communication on YouTube, focusing on content factors that affect
popularity. They conclude that user-generated content was more popu-
lar than professionally generated content, and videos that had consistent
science communicators were more popular than those without a regular
communicator.
More recent research, conducted by Erviti and León (2017 ), studies the
relative popularity of science online video, through a content analysis of the
Popular on YouTube channel. They conclude that ‘science and technology’
are relatively popular topics in this platform and that technology is the most
popular discipline within this category.
1.2. The Videonline Project
This book is based on the main results of the international research project
Videonline, conducted by 19 researchers from nine universities across fi ve
countries.
1 For over three years, the researchers have studied science online
video from several perspectives, using several methodologies:
• A wide literature review of more than 500 academic books and papers
that inform the design of the project and provide meaningful contextual
information for the results and discussion.
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 7
• A content analysis of 826 videos related to three key scientific
disciplines—climate change, vaccines and nanotechnology—that
provide an in-depth view of narrative and production trends and pat-
terns of science online videos (see Appendix 1 ). The selection of the
three scientific topics is related to contemporary issues that receive
public and academic attention. We analysed and compared these
issues in online videos in a similar way to Hargreaves et al. (2003),
who studied the representation of climate change, MMR vaccine and
the development in cloning and genetic medical research on the media
(TV, newspapers, radio).
• A series of interviews with experts in the field that provide some keys
for production of online videos that are successful for presenting sci-
entific concepts to the general public in a way that makes them under-
standable and interesting (see Section 2.3).
• An in-depth study of several case studies of successful science online
channels and videos developed by producers in several countries.
• Surveys among experts in several scientific disciplines that provide
valuable information on how to maintain standards of rigour when pro-
ducing online science videos (see Section 7.3).
The results of this research project provide an updated analysis of the cur-
rent panorama of online video as a tool to communicate science and technol-
ogy from a wide international perspective. This is a comprehensive view of
a new phenomenon of increasing relevance and future potential that consid-
ers the challenges to the fi eld of science and technology communication that
online video is facing.
1.3. Summary of Main Findings
Following this introduction, this book is structured in nine chapters,
each dealing with a specifi c aspect of science online video. This section
summarises the main results and conclusions that are explained in each
chapter.
In Chapter 2 , José Alberto García-Avilés and Alicia de Lara highlight
some of the key characteristics that a science video must fulfil in order to
be effective. Based on interviews with a panel of nine experts in this field,
they conclude that the audience needs and expectations must be placed at
the centre of the production process, so that each video keeps the right focus
to meet the audience’s interest. This often means choosing those scientific
subjects that are fascinating by themselves and that explain relevant issues
connected to daily life. Most experts agree that science online videos must
be brief, visually attractive and easy to watch.
8 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
In addition, this chapter presents the first classification of science online
video, distinguishing 18 different video formats, divided into two subgroups
that allow comparisons to be made between television and web formats.
Designing this typology was not an easy task, considering that online video
is characterised by its diversity and also by a growing hybridisation of
formats.
Applying this classification to the content analysis conducted for this
research project identifies video blogs, TV news stories and TV features
or documentaries as the most frequent video formats that are used to com-
municate science.
In Chapter 3 , María Carmen Erviti explores the relationship between
those who make online science videos, the motivations driving them and
the content they produce. From the content analysis of the videos on cli-
mate change, vaccines and nanotechnology, she analyses the objectives of
producers, scientific sources informing content and the genres used to com-
municate science-based information.
Her findings indicate that science video producers fit broadly into two
categories: those producing traditional journalistic genres, which predomi-
nantly follow television news formats, and others producing non-journalis-
tic genres (including creators of user-generated content). Her contribution
reflects a theme that resonates throughout the research informing the broad
corpus of this volume: legacy media forms and functions continue to influ-
ence new audiovisual science communications. The author also finds that
information dissemination is by far the primary objective of science online
video, followed by awareness, commercial imperatives and infotainment,
which combines entertainment and information goals. Entertainment as a
sole goal of communication is a low objective priority for producers—a
theme explored further in Chapter 8 by Michael Bourk, Bienvenido León
and Lloyd S. Davis.
In Chapter 4 , María Carmen Erviti, José Azevedo and Mónica Codina
take up the theme of how online science videos present controversies. In
their analysis of the video sample, they find that climate change and vaccine
immunisation, particularly for children, are treated as more controversial
than audiovisual content discussing nanotechnology. In particular, although
the majority of science research confirms anthropogenic climate change as
a major issue facing the planet and vaccine immunisation as essential to the
health of communities and the eradication of certain diseases, controversy
continues to surround the claims. However, both issues are less likely to
raise questions of science as much as those pertaining to political or eco-
nomic matters. In other words, online videos are likely to confirm there is
little controversy associated with climate change and vaccines when the
focus is on science. In contrast, when economic and political issues take
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 9
centre stage, the topics are more likely to be presented as controversial,
which demonstrates the resilience of non-scientific narratives. More spe-
cifically, overall, information-oriented videos are likely to be more con-
troversial than those with other objectives such as awareness, infotainment
and entertainment, with even less controversy associated with educational
and commercial videos. However, the highest percentage of controversy is
found within infotainment-oriented videos, although the category represents
a small proportion of the overall sample. The authors make an important
contribution for those interested in exploring the resilience of scientifically
discredited assumptions and their replication in online environments.
Narrative is the central concept in Chapter 5 , which presents the research
findings of Lloyd S. Davis and Bienvenido León as they seek to answer
the following questions: ‘What narratives dominate online science videos
and to what extent do innovations in storytelling demonstrate the Internet’s
potential?’ The Internet’s technological capacities allow for interactive, non-
sequential, multimedia engagement with science topics between producers
and consumers, which also blur the line between both. The consequence,
many theorized, would be media-enrichened, multiple pathways to learning
and knowledge accumulation.
However, in a disappointing reveal, the researchers discover from their
content analysis that most online video items either replicate the expository
documentary styles of legacy audiovisual media—most notably television—
or present an amateurish informal style exemplified in many user-generated
content (UGC) contributions. In addition, some institutions with the resources
and professional ability to undertake innovative programming are adopting
cheaper, conventional methods—presumably, the authors surmise, to appear
more authentic—in a similar way cinéma vérité film-makers pursue the look
of realism.
The authors argue that the consequence of television companies moving
both their business practices and content formats online and the democrati-
sation of the film-making process, as exemplified by user-generated content,
has been an inertia effect on innovation. Their findings reflect the trend first
discussed in Chapter 3 by Erviti that shows the continuing influence of tele-
vision and other legacy media on audiovisual science content disseminated
over the Internet. They describe the result as a modern version of the Trag-
edy of the Commons in which what may be best for the common good, such
as more fully exploring new narrative possibilities presented by technology
for the dissemination and communication of science, may be sacrificed in
the pursuit of individual self-interest.
In Chapter 6 , Miquel Francés and Àlvar Peris shine a spotlight on the
commitment to scientific rigour in online videos. Adapting an instrument
first constructed by a group of health researchers to measure the reliability
10 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
of health-related news, the researchers add additional variables to apply
in online environments. They construct an instrument that may be used
to evaluate the scientific rigour of content produced using a diversity of
science topics and formats. To examine the concept of rigour further, the
researchers construct and distribute a questionnaire to scientists, specialists
in the areas of climate change, vaccine immunisation and nanotechnology,
for their views of the scientific rigour evident in online videos covering the
three topics.
The experts generally respond positively in their evaluations of the vid-
eos, although they disagree as to how much regard was shown for scientific
rigour, with a third expressing only partial agreement. The researchers find
variations in expert opinion across the three topics, with those reviewing
videos addressing climate change and vaccine immunisation more scepti-
cal of the attention to rigour than those evaluating nanotechnology online
audiovisual content. The authors surmise that political, cultural and eco-
nomic factors are less likely to influence the content of nanotechnology
discussion than the other two topics—a theme also developed by the authors
earlier in Chapter 4 , which explores how controversy appears in online sci-
ence videos. The scientific experts also express some scepticism in the use
of sophisticated images and graphics to communicate science, which some
feel negatively impacted rigour—a concern that may be compared alongside
Lloyd and León´s ( Chapter 5 ) frustration in the lack of computer-generated
images (CGIs) and graphics used in online science video. Erviti’s interviews
exposing a slight cynicism among scientists towards CGIs may indicate yet
another reason for its relatively low visibility in online video.
Audiovisual formats and content are explored in university corporate
communications in research conducted by Joan Enric Úbeda and Germán
Llorca-Abad in Chapter 7 . Specifically, the researchers investigate how
tertiary institutions grapple with communicating a consistent image and to
what extent branding efforts should mark their online audiovisual commu-
nications. The research analyses an area that exposes the real tensions that
mark the role and place of universities in the current era, raising questions
as to how much visibility should be given to market markers of image and
corporate personality in communications that are traditionally evaluated by
their commitment to scientific rigour and intellectual contribution. Their
findings have a broader application beyond the academy to how science and
scientists should present themselves in online audiovisual communications.
From an analysis of 240 scientific dissemination videos collected from six
of the top ten universities in the world according to Academic Ranking of
World Universities ( ARWU), the researchers observe mixed results, with
some visibility in approximately half of the videos given to branding ele-
ments but few that demonstrate a consistent use and application of most
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 11
brand markers, such as copyright or copyleft, and video bugs or perpetual
graphic symbols shown throughout the video duration. The results indicate
reluctance among many tertiary institutions communicating science-related
material to demonstrably incorporate branding and positioning strategies
into their corporate communications—indicating the continuing tension
between research and market priorities.
In Chapter 8 , Michael Bourk, Bienvenido León and Lloyd S. Davis
more fully explore the place of entertainment in online science videos. The
researchers’ review of the literature indicates that media entertainment is
a complex, multifaceted social phenomenon, as demonstrated in both its
production and its consumption. From the literature, the researchers iden-
tify four constitutive elements of entertainment in science communication:
story, images, personalisation and humour. A subsequent content analysis of
the online science videos calculates the frequencies of one or more elements
of entertainment against each of the three science themes that inform most
of the research for this volume: climate change, vaccine immunisation and
nanotechnology.
The researchers find that, in the context of audiovisual science communi-
cation, entertainment served only a marginal purpose, whereas infotainment
as the objective was more prominent. However, many videos incorporate at
least one or more of the four constitutive elements of entertainment, making
scientific and technical topics more accessible and interesting to general
audiences. In other words, incorporating entertainment elements into the
message served other objectives such as information or building awareness.
The researchers use the study’s findings to construct an E-index to measure
the level of entertainment of media content.
Selecting one of the major three science topics from the total video
sample, in Chapter 9 , Bienvenido León, Maxwell Boykoff, Juhi Huda
and Carmen Rodrigo undertake a comprehensive analysis of how climate
change is framed in online videos. The researchers set out to compare
online video frames with those from previous studies of climate change
frames in traditional media. In particular, the study analyses online vid-
eos’ treatment of three dominant thematic frames found in traditional
media climate change: scientific, ecologic-meteorological and political-
economic. In addition, the researchers compare the prevalence of func-
tional loss and gain frames between traditional and online media, where
a loss frame emphasises the losses faced as a consequence of inaction,
while gain frames highlight the benefits from personal and social action
towards mitigating climate change.
Their findings show mixed results. Science is the dominant frame in
online videos in contrast to earlier research by Boykoff (2011) that found
the political-economic frame to be most prevalent in UK tabloid papers.
12 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
However, the often criticised loss frame of climate change, which reflects
institutional news values—such as conflict, sensationalism and uncertainty—
dominates both traditional and new audiovisual media, regardless of pro-
ducer source. The researchers suggest the results may either indicate the
power of traditional media to influence online media frames or just be a dis-
turbing consequence of long-standing societal perceptions of how climate
change is understood. In conclusion, the authors express the hope, echoed
by other contributors to this volume whose findings reflect a similar pattern
of innovative inertia, that future online content may more creatively take
advantage of the technological and democratic-participative opportunities
to present climate change—and by extension, science—differently than it
has in the past.
Note
1 . University of Navarra (Spain): Bienvenido León (principal researcher), María
del Carmen Erviti, Mónica Codina, José Javier Sánchez Aranda and Carmen
Rodrigo. University of Valencia (Spain): Miquel Francés, Álvar Peris, Diego
Mollá, Germán Llorca, José Gavaldà and Joan Enric Úbeda. University Miguel
Hernández (Spain): José Alberto García Avilés and Alicia de Lara. Pompeu
Fabra University (Spain): Gema Revuelta and Nuria Saladié. University of Porto
(Portugal): José Azevedo. University of Otago (New Zealand): Lloyd S. Davis.
University of Colorado (USA): Maxwell Boykoff. University of Florida (USA):
Sriram Kalyanaraman. Gulf University for Science and Technology (Kuwait):
Michael Bourk. This project was sponsored by the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness (CSO2013–45301-P).
Bibliography
Alexa (2017). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved from www.alexa.com/topsites
Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting
on climate change . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bruns, A. (2008). Reconfiguring television for a networked, produsage context.
Media International Australia , 126 (1), 82–94.
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture .
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Christensson, C., & Sjöström, J. (2014). Chemistry in context: Analysis of thematic
chemistry videos available online. Chemistry Education Research and Practice ,
15 , 59–69.
Cisco (2016). Cisco white paper: Cisco VNI Forecast and Methodology, 2015–2020.
Retrieved from www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/
visual-networking-index-vni/complete-white-paper-c11-481360.html
eMarketer. (2017). eMarketer releases new estimates for video audience worldwide.
Retrieved from www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Releases-New-Estimates-
Video-Audience-Worldwide/1015031
Investigating Science-Related Online Video 13
Erdal, I. J. (2009). Repurposing of content in multi-platform news production: Towards
a typology of cross-media journalism. Journalism Practice , 3 (2), 178–195.
Erviti, M. C., & León, B. (2017). Participatory culture and science communication:
A content analysis of popular science on YouTube. In: C. del Valle Rojas & C.
Salgado Santamaría (Eds.), Nuevas Formas de Expresión en Comunicación
(pp. 271–286). Madrid: Ediciones Universitarias McGraw-Hill.
FECYT (2017). VIII Encuesta de percepción social de la ciencia. Retrieved from
www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Cultura/FICHEROS/2017/Dossier_
PSC_2017.pdf
Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J., & Speers, T. (2003). Towards a better map: Science, the
public and the media . Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.
Heras, F., & Meira, P. A. (2014). ¿Cómo podemos mejorar la calidad de la infor-
mación sobre el cambio climático? In: B. Leon (Ed.), Periodismo, medios de
comunicación y cambio climático (pp. 28–48). Salamanca: Comunicación Social.
Jaspal, R., Turner, A., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Fracking on YouTube: Exploring risks,
benefits and human values. Environmental Values , 23 (5), 501–527.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide . New
York: New York University Press.
Kalogeropoulos, A., Cherubini, F., & Newman, N. (2016). The future of online news
video . Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Kim, J. (2012). The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to
professionally generated content. Media, Culture & Society , 34 (1), 53–67.
Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E. A., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D visualiza-
tion types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th
grade students in Greece. Computers & Education , 52 (2), 390–401.
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical
introduction . London: Routledge.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Under-
standing of Science, 10, 115–120. DOI: 10.3109/a036859.
Murugiah, K., Vallakatib, A., Rajputc, K., Soodd, A., & Challae, N. (2011). YouTube
as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation , 82 (3),
332–334.
National Science Board (2016). Public attitudes and understanding. Retrieved from
www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/10/chapter-7.pdf
Nisbet M. C., & Scheufele D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication?
Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96,
1767–1778.
Notley, T., Salazar, J. F., & Crosby, A. (2013). Online video translation and subti-
tling: Examining emerging practices and their implications for media activism in
South East Asia. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition , 7 (1).
Peer, L., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2011). YouTube and the challenge to journalism: New
standards for news videos online. Journalism Studies , 12 (1), 45–63.
RISJ (2017). Digital news report. Retrieved from www.digitalnewsreport.org/
Sartori, G. (1998). Homo videns. La sociedad teledirigida . Madrid: Taurus.
Slawter, L. D., & TreeHuggerTV (2008). Re-visualizing environmental activism in
the post-network era. Environmental Communication , 2 (2), 212–228.
14 Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
Sood, A., Sarangi, S., Pandey, A., & Muruglah, K. (2011). YouTube as a source of
information on kidney stone disease. Urology , 77 (3), 558–563.
Sørenssen, B. (2008). Digital video and Alexandre Astruc’s caméra-stylo: The
new avant-garde in documentary realized? Studies in Documentary Film , 2 (1),
47–59.
Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary peo-
ple. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communi-
cation and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the Association for Informa-
tion Science and Technology , 64 (4), 663–674.
Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Vis, F. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From Gua-
temalan rock to El Big Bang. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology , 63 (3), 616–629.
Uldam, J., & Askanius, T. (2013). Online civic cultures? Debating climate change
activism on YouTube. International Journal of Communication , 7 , 20.
Weigold, M. F. & Treise, D. (2004). Attracting teen surfers to science Web sites.
Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 229–248.
Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube: Fac-
tors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science ,
25 (6), 706–718.
Wordstream (2017). 40 essential social media marketing statistics for 2017.
Retrieved from www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/01/05/social-media-marketing-
statistics
Yoo, J., & Kim, J. (2012). Obesity in the new media: A content analysis of obesity
videos on YouTube. Health Communication , 27 , 86–97.
Young, J. R. (2008). YouTube professors: Scholars as online video stars. The Chronicle
of Higher Education , 54 , 19.
YouTube (2017). Statistics. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/
statistics.html
Investigating Science-Related Online Video
Alexa (2017). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved from
www.alexa.com/topsites
Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media
reporting on climate change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bruns, A. (2008). Reconfiguring television for a networked, produsage context.
Media International Australia, 126 (1), 8294.
Burgess, J. , & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Christensson, C. , & Sjstrm, J. (2014). Chemistry in context: Analysis of thematic
chemistry videos available online. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15,
5969.
Cisco (2016). Cisco white paper: Cisco VNI Forecast and Methodology, 20152020.
Retrieved from www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-
networking-index-vni/complete-white-paper-c11-481360.html
eMarketer . (2017). eMarketer releases new estimates for video audience
worldwide. Retrieved from www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Releases-New-
Estimates-Video-Audience-Worldwide/1015031
13 Erdal, I. J. (2009). Repurposing of content in multi-platform news production:
Towards a typology of cross-media journalism. Journalism Practice, 3 (2), 178195.
Erviti, M. C. , & Len, B. (2017). Participatory culture and science communication: A
content analysis of popular science on YouTube. In: C. del Valle Rojas & C.
Salgado Santamara (Eds.), Nuevas Formas de Expresin en Comunicacin (pp.
271286). Madrid: Ediciones Universitarias McGraw-Hill.
FECYT (2017). VIII Encuesta de percepcin social de la ciencia. Retrieved from
www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Cultura/FICHEROS/2017/Dossier_PSC_2017
.pdf
Hargreaves, I. , Lewis, J. , & Speers, T. (2003). Towards a better map: Science,
the public and the media. Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.
Heras, F. , & Meira, P. A. (2014). Cmo podemos mejorar la calidad de la
informacin sobre el cambio climtico? In: B. Leon (Ed.), Periodismo, medios de
comunicacin y cambio climtico (pp. 2848). Salamanca: Comunicacin Social.
Jaspal, R. , Turner, A. , & Nerlich, B. (2014). Fracking on YouTube: Exploring risks,
benefits and human values. Environmental Values, 23 (5), 501527.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New
York: New York University Press.
Kalogeropoulos, A. , Cherubini, F. , & Newman, N. (2016). The future of online
news video. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Kim, J. (2012). The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to
professionally generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 34 (1), 5367.
Korakakis, G. , Pavlatou, E. A. , Palyvos, J. A. , & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D
visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for
8th grade students in Greece. Computers & Education, 52 (2), 390401.
Lister, M. , Dovey, J. , Giddings, S. , Grant, I. , & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A
critical introduction. London: Routledge.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public
Understanding of Science, 10, 115120. DOI: 10.3109/a036859.
Murugiah, K. , Vallakatib, A. , Rajputc, K. , Soodd, A. , & Challae, N. (2011).
YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Resuscitation, 82 (3), 332334.
National Science Board (2016). Public attitudes and understanding. Retrieved from
www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/10/chapter-7.pdf
Nisbet M. C. , & Scheufele D. A. (2009). Whats next for science communication?
Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96,
17671778.
Notley, T. , Salazar, J. F. , & Crosby, A. (2013). Online video translation and
subtitling: Examining emerging practices and their implications for media activism
in South East Asia. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, 7 (1).
Peer, L. , & Ksiazek, T. B. (2011). YouTube and the challenge to journalism: New
standards for news videos online. Journalism Studies, 12 (1), 4563.
RISJ (2017). Digital news report. Retrieved from www.digitalnewsreport.org/
Sartori, G. (1998). Homo videns. La sociedad teledirigida. Madrid: Taurus.
Slawter, L. D., & TreeHuggerTV (2008). Re-visualizing environmental activism in
the post-network era. Environmental Communication, 2 (2), 212228.
14 Sood, A. , Sarangi, S. , Pandey, A. , & Muruglah, K. (2011). YouTube as a
source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology, 77 (3), 558563.
Srenssen, B. (2008). Digital video and Alexandre Astrucs camra-stylo: The new
avant-garde in documentary realized? Studies in Documentary Film, 2 (1), 4759.
Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary
people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sugimoto, C. R. , & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science
communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 64 (4), 663674.
Thelwall, M. , Sud, P. , & Vis, F. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From
Guatemalan rock to El Big Bang. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 63 (3), 616629.
Uldam, J. , & Askanius, T. (2013). Online civic cultures? Debating climate change
activism on YouTube. International Journal of Communication, 7, 20.
Weigold, M. F. & Treise, D. (2004). Attracting teen surfers to science Web sites.
Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 229248.
Welbourne, D. J. , & Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube:
Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science,
25 (6), 706718.
Wordstream (2017). 40 essential social media marketing statistics for 2017.
Retrieved from www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/01/05/social-media-marketing-
statistics
Yoo, J. , & Kim, J. (2012). Obesity in the new media: A content analysis of obesity
videos on YouTube. Health Communication, 27, 8697.
Young, J. R. (2008). YouTube professors: Scholars as online video stars. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, 19.
YouTube (2017). Statistics. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-
GB/statistics.html
An Overview of Science Online Video
Allgaier, J. (2012). On the shoulders of YouTube: Science in music videos. Science
Communication, 35 (2), 266275.
Alvarado, M. , Buonanno, M. , Gray, H. , & Miller, T. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage
handbook of television studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arias, F. (2013). La ludificacin de la informacin cibertelevisiva. Interaccin e
inmersin en el periodismo multimedia. In: B. Len (Ed.), Entretenimiento basado en
hechos reales (pp. 135149). Sevilla: Comunicacin Social.
Aufderheide, P. (1986). Music videos: The look of the sound. Journal of
Communication, 36 (1), 5778.
Bandrs, E. , Garca Avils, J. A. , Prez, G. , & Prez, J. (2000). El periodismo en la
televisin digital. Barcelona: Paids.
Bucchi, M. , & Trench, B. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of public communication of
science and technology. London: Routledge.
Calvert, B. , Casey, N. , Casey, B. , French, L. , & Lewis, J. (2007). Television
studies: The key concepts. London: Routledge.
Cisco (2017). Cisco white paper: The Zettabyte Era. Trends and Analysis, June
2017. Retrieved from www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-
provider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-hyperconnectivity-wp.html
De Lara, A. (2014). Searching for quality: A debate among journalists, scientists
and readers about the coverage of climate change in the Spanish media. Revista
Prisma Social, 12, 196231.
De Lara, A. , Garca Avils, J. A. , & Revuelta, G. (2017). Online video on climate
change: A comparison between television and web formats. Journal of Science
Communication, 16 (1), A04.
eMarketer . (2017). eMarketer releases new estimates for video audience
worldwide. Retrieved from www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Releases-New-
Estimates-Video-Audience-Worldwide/1015031
26 Garca-Avils, J. A. (2012). Roles of audience participation in multiplatform
television: From fans and consumers, to collaborators and activists: Participations.
Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9 (2), 429447.
Geisler, G. , & Burns, S. (2007). Tagging video: Conventions and strategies of the
YouTube community. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference
on Digital Libraries (pp. 480480). New York: ACM.
Gifreu, A. (2011). The interactive multimedia documentary as a discourse on
interactive non-fiction: For a proposal of the definition and categorisation of the
emerging genre. Hipertext.net, 9. Retrieved from
www.upf.edu/hipertextnet/en/numero-9/interactive-multimedia.html
Jeffs, T. , & Smith, M. (Eds.) (1990). Using informal education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Kim, J. (2012). The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to
professionally generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 34 (1), 5367.
Krutnik, F. , & Neale, S. (2006). Popular film and television comedy. New York:
Routledge.
Muoz Morcillo, J. , Czurda, K. , & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016). Typologies
of the popular science web video. Journal of Science Communication, 15 (4), A02.
Nash, K. (2012). Modes of interactivity: Analysing the webdoc. Media, Culture &
Society, 34 (2), 195210.
Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pew Research Center (2012). Video length. Retrieved from
www.journalism.org/2012/07/16/video-length/
Ranger, M. , & Bultitude, K. (2016). The kind of mildly curious sort of science
interested person like me: Science bloggers practices relating to audience
recruitment. Public Understanding of Science, 25 (3), 361378.
Roth, W. M. , & Friesen, N. (2014). Nacherzeugung, Nachverstehen: A
phenomenological perspective on how public understanding of science changes by
engaging with online media. Public Understanding of Science, 23 (7) 116.
Sal, G. (2003). Qu es eso del formato? Cmo nace y se desarrolla un programa de
televisin. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Simpson, W. , & Greenfield, H. (2009). IPTV and internet video: Expanding the
reach of television broadcasting. Oxford: Elsevier.
Soulages, J.-C. (2007). Les rhtoriques tlvisuelles. Le formatage du regard.
Bruxelles: De Boeck-INA.
Teixeira, T. (2012). The new science of viral ads. Harvard Business Review, 49,
2527.
Thelwall, M. , Sud, P. , & Vis, F. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From
Guatemalan rock to el big bang. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 63 (3), 616629.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Vickery, G. & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative web and user-created
content: Web 2.0 wikis and social networking. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
27 Welbourne, D. J. & Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube:
Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science,
114.
Wunsch-Vincent, S. , & Vickery, G. (2007). Participative web: User-created
content, technical report DSTI/ICCP/IE(2006)7/FINAL, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. Compiled for the Working Party on the Information
Economy of the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy
of the OECDs Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Paris: OECD.
Young, J. R. (2011). TED, known for big idea conferences, pushes into education.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/ted-known-for-big-idea-
conferences-pushes-into-education/30094
YouTube (2017). Statistics. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-
GB/statistics.html
Producing Science Online Video
Bentley, P. , & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A
survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of
Science, 20 (1), 4863.
Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube,
and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in
Teaching and Learning, 5 (1), 121.
Besley, J. C. , Dudo, A. D. , Yuan, S. , & Ghannam, N. A. (2016). Qualitative
interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives
and goals. Science Communication, 38 (3), 356381.
Burgess, J. , & Green, J. (2013). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Erviti, M. C. , & Len, B. (2016). Participatory culture and science communication: A
content analysis of popular science on YouTube. In: C. del Valle Rojas & C.
Salgado Santamara (Eds.), Nuevas Formas de Expresin (pp. 271286). Madrid:
Ediciones Universitarias McGraw-Hill.
Gerhards, J. , & Schfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere?
Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany. New Media & Society, 12
(1), 143160.
Jaffar, A. A. (2012). YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical
Sciences Education, 5 (3), 158164.
40 Jensen, P. , Rouquier, J. B. , Kreimer, P. , & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists
who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy,
35 (7), 527541.
Len, B. (Ed.) (2010). Ciencia para la televisin: el documental cientfico y sus claves.
Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Morcillo, J. M. , Czurda, K. , & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016). Typologies of
the popular science web video. JCOM, 15 (4), A02A02.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as
public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110
(Supplement 3), 1410214109.
Sugimoto, C. R. , & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science
communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 64 (4), 663674.
Sugimoto, C. R. , Thelwall, M. , Larivire, V. , Tsou, A. , Mongeon, P. , & Macaluso,
B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED Talk
presenters. PLoS One, 8 (4), e62403. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062403
TED.com . (n.d.). About TED. Retrieved from www.ted.com
Thackeray, R. , Neiger, B. L. , Smith, A. K. , & Van Wagenen, S. B. (2012).
Adoption and use of social media among public health departments. BMC Public
Health, 12 (242), article 242.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.
Media, Culture and Society, 31 (1), 41.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science
Communication, 23 (2), 164193.
When Science Becomes Controversial
Antilla, L. (2005). Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15 (4), 338352.
Aykut, S. C. , Comby, J. B. , & Guillemot, H. (2012). Climate change controversies
in French Mass Media 19902010. Journalism Studies, 13 (2), 157174.
Boykoff, M. T. (2007). From convergence to contention: United States mass media
representations of anthropogenic climate change science. TransactionsInstitute of
British Geographers (1965), 32 (4), 477489.
Boykoff, M. T. , & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US
prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125136.
Boykoff, M. T. , & Boykoff, J. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A
case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38 (6), 11901204.
Boykoff, M. T. , & Roberts, J. T. (2007). Climate change and human development:
Risk and vulnerability in a warming world: Media coverage of climate change:
Current trends, strengths, weaknesses. New York: United Nations Development
Report, Occasional paper, 2007/3.
Burri, R. V. (2007). Deliberating risks under uncertainty: Experience, trust, and
attitudes in a Swiss nanotechnology stakeholder discussion group. Nano Ethics, 1
(2), 143154.
Carlton, J. S. , Perry-Hill, R. , Huber, M. , & Prokopy, L. S. (2015). The climate
change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research
Letters, 10 (9), 094025.
Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific
knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science,
16, 223243.
Clarke, C. E. (2008). A question of balance the autism-vaccine controversy in the
British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30 (1), 77107.
Conti, J. , Satterfield, T. , & Harthorn, B. H. (2011). Vulnerability and social justice
as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal, 31 (11),
17341748.
Cook, J. , Nuccitelli, D. , Green, S. A. , Richardson, M. , Winkler, B. , Painting, R. ,
& Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in
the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8 (2), 024024.
Corbett, J. B. , Young, L. E. , & Davis, B. L. (2009). Interaccin entre medios,
ciencia, poltica, industria y audiencias. Infoamrica-Iberoamerican Communication
Review, 1, 523.
53 Dixon, G. N. , & Clarke, C. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain
science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autismvaccine controversy.
Science Communication, 35 (3), 358382.
Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and
education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (36) 95879592.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114
Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists and the meaning of uncertainty. In: S.
M. Friedman , S. Dunwoody , & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty:
Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 5979). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dunwoody, S. , & Peters, H. P. (1992). Mass media coverage of technological and
environmental risk: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public
Understanding of Science, 1, 199230.
Ennals, R. , Byler, D. , Agosta, J. M. , & Rosario, B. (2010, April). What is disputed
on the web? In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Information Credibility (pp.
6774). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1772938.1772952
Farshchi, P. , Sadrnezhaad, S. K. , Nejad, N. M. , Mahmoodi, M. , & Abadi, L. I. G.
(2011). Nanotechnology in the public eye: The case of Iran, as a developing
country, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13 (8), 35113519.
Friedman, S. M. , Dunwoody, S. , & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.) (1999). Communicating
uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Goldacre, B. (2008). The MMR hoax. The Guardian. Retrieved from
www.theguardian.com/society/2008/aug/30/mmr.health.media
Gupta, N. , Fischer, A. R. H. , & Frewer, L. J. (2015). Ethics, risk and benefits
associated with different applications of nanotechnology: A comparison of expert
and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. Nanoethics, 9, 93108.
Holliman, R. (2011). The struggle for scientific consensus: Communicating climate
science around COP-15. In B. Wagoner , E. Jensen , J. Oldmeadow (Eds.),
Culture and social change: Transforming society through the power of ideas (pp.
185207). Charlotte, N.C., USA: Information Age Publishing.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding
controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Len, B. (2008). Science related information in European television: A study of
prime-time news. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (4), 443460.
Len, B. , & Erviti, M. C. (2011). Portrayal of scientific controversy on climate
change: A study of the coverage of the Copenhagen summit in the Spanish press.
Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 5 (3), 4563.
Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Introduction: Nanotechnology and the public. Science
Communication, 27 (2), 169174.
McCright, A. M. , & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social
problem: An analysis of the conservative movements counter-claims. Social
Problems, 47(4), 499522.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology
(2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
54 Nelkin, D. , & Tancredi, L. (1994). Dangerous diagnostics: The social power of
biological information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nyhan, B. , & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political
misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32 (2), 303330.
Nyhan, B. , Reifler, J. , Richey, S. , & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in
vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133 (4), e835e842.
Oreskes, N. (2004, December 3). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The scientific
consensus on climate change. Science, 306 (5702), 1686.
Painter, J. (2013). Climate change in the media: Reporting risk and uncertainty.
London/New York: I. B. Tauris.
Retzbach, A. , Marschall, J. , Rahnke, M. , Otto, L. , & Maier, M. (2011). Public
understanding of science and the perception of nano-technology: The roles of
interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs
about science, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13 (12), 62316244.
Ronteltap, A. , Fischer, A. R. H. , & Tobi, H. (2011). Societal response to
nanotechnology: Converging technologiesconverging societal response research?
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 43994410.
Sandler, R. (2009). Nanotechnology: The social and ethical issues. Washington,
DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Satterfield, T. , Kandlikar, M. , Beaudrie, C. E. H. , Conti, J. , & Herr Harthorn, B.
(2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nano-technologies. Nature
Nanotechnology, 4 (11), 752758.
Schmidt, A. , Ivanova, A. , & Schfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate
change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27
countries. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 12331248.
Smith, S. E. , Hosgood, H. D. , & Michelson, E. S. (2008). Americans
nanotechnology risk perception: Assessing opinion change. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 12 (3), 459473.
Smith, S. E. S. , Hosgood, H. D. , Michelson, E. S. , & Stowe, M. H. (2008).
Americans nanotechnology risk perception. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3),
459473.
Thorson, E. (2013, April). The consequences of misinformation and fact-checking
for citizens, politicians, and the media. In: Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago.
Wakefield, A. J. , Murch, S. H. , Linnell, A. A. J. , Casson, D. M. , Malik, M. ,
Berelowitz, M. , Dhillon, A. P. , Thomson, M. A. , Harvey, P. , Valentine, A. ,
Davies, S. E. , & Walker-Bush, J. A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia,
non-specific coitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351,
637641.
New and Old Narratives
Anonymous (2015). The marketers guide to user-generated content. CrowdTap:
The People-Powered Marketing Platform. Retrieved from www.iab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Crowdtap_TheMarketersGuidetoUGC.pdf
Babirat, C. , & Davis, L. S. (2008). The business of documentary filmmaking: A
practical guide for emerging New Zealand filmmakers. Dunedin, NZ: Longacre
Press.
Barsam, R. M. (1992). Nonfiction film: A critical history. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Berger, J. (2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bortoliero, S. (2015). Comunicando a cincia no YouTube: a contaminao do ar se
propaga online em velhas narrativas audiovisuais. Comunicao & Sociedade, 37
(3), 239256.
Burgess, J. , & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Casacuberta, D. (2003). Creacin Colectiva: En Internet el creador es el pblico.
Barcelona: Gedisa.
Davis, L. S. (2010). Science communication: A down under perspective. Japanese
Journal of Science Communication, 7, 6571.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 12431248.
Haven, K. (2007). Story proof: The science behind the startling power of story.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Koenitz, H. , & Knoller, N. (2017). Interactive digital narratives for iTV and online
video. In: R. Nakatsu , M. Rauterberg , & P. Ciancarini (Eds.), Handbook of digital
games and entertainment technologies (pp. 10971126). Singapore: Springer
Reference.
Kuhn, M. (2015). (Un)reliability in fictional and factual audiovisual narratives on
YouTube. In: V. Nunning (Ed.), Unreliable narration and trustworthiness:
Intermedial and interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 245272). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Len, B. (2007). Science on television: The narrative of scientific documentary.
Luton, UK: Pantaneto Press.
Len, B. , & Erviti, M. C. (2016). A climate summit in pictures. In: J. Painter , M. C.
Erviti , R. Fletcher , C. Howarth , S. Kristiansen , B. Len , A. Ouakrat , A. Russell ,
& M. S. Schfer (Eds.), Something old, something new: Digital media and the
coverage of climate change (pp. 6372). Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism.
Lobato, R. , Thomas, J. , & Hunter, D. (2011). Histories of user-generated content:
Between formal and informal media economies. International Journal of
Communication, 5, 899914.
McKee, R. (1997). Story: Style, structure, substance, and the principles of screen-
writing. New York: Harper Collins.
McNaughton, A. (2015). The influence of narrative style on the ability to recall
anatomical terms. MSciComm thesis. Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago.
Mier, C. , & Porto-Ren, D. (2009). Blogosfera y YouTube como espacios para la
exhibicin de productos audiovisuales interactivos. Palabra Clave, 12 (2), 207214.
Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to documentary (2nd ed.). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
63 Page, R. , & Thomas, B. (2011). Introduction. In: R. Page & B. Thomas (Eds.),
New narratives: Stories and storytelling in the digital age (pp. 116). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Romero, N. L. , & Centellas, F. C. (2008). New stages, new narrative forms: The
Web 2.0 and audiovisual language. Hipertext.net, 6. Retrieved from
www.upf.edu/hipertextnet/en/numero-6/lenguaje-audiovisual.html
Stahl, S. A. , & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A
model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56 (1), 72110.
Walgrove, A. (2015). The explosive growth of online video, in 5 charts. Contently.
Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2015/07/06/the-explosive-growth-of-
online-video-in-5-charts/
Waters, R. D. , & Jones, P. M. (2011). Using video to build an organizations
identity and brand: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations YouTube videos.
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23, 248268.
Wolfe, M. B. , & Mienko, J. A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from
narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (3),
541564.
Xhemaili, M. (2013). The advantages of using films to enhance students reading
skills in the EFL classroom. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (13), 6266.
Rigour in Online Science Videos
Alcbar Cuello, J. M. (2004). La divulgacin meditica de la ciencia y la tecnologa
como recontextualizacin discursiva. Anlisi: Quaderns de comunicaci i cultura, 31,
4370.
Berruecos, V. , & de Lourdes, M. (2000). Las dos caras de la ciencia:
Representaciones sociales en el discurso. Revista Iberoamericana de Discurso y
Sociedad, 2 (2), 105130.
Blumler, J. G. (1992). Televisin e inters pblico. Barcelona: Bosch.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Sobre la televisin. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Brume, J. (2001). La Historia de los lenguajes iberoamericanos de especialidad: la
divulgacin de la ciencia. Barcelona: Iberoamericana.
Carrillo, N. (2013). El gnero-tendencia del infoentretenimiento: definicin,
caractersticas y vas de estudio. In: C. Ferr (Ed.), Infoentretenimiento. El formato
imparable de la era del espectculo (pp. 3358). Barcelona: UOC.
Corner, J. (2004). Afterword: Framing the new. In: S. Holmes & D. Jermyn (Eds.),
Understanding reality television (pp. 290299). London/New York: Routledge.
Eco, U. (1986). La estrategia de la ilusin. Barcelona: Lumen.
Estrada, L. (1981). La divulgacin de la ciencia. Mxico: Cuadernos de Extensin
Universitaria, UNAM.
Ferr, C. (Ed.) (2013). Infoentretenimiento. El formato imparable de la era del
espectculo. Barcelona: UOC.
Gavald, J. (2002). El discurso televisivo y sus estrategias de legitimacin. Quad-
erns de Filologia. Estudis de Comunicaci, 1, 117132.
75 Gavald, J. (2013). Hibridacin discursiva y programacin televisiva: infoshow y
docuficcin. In: M. Francs , J. Gavald , G. Llorca , & . Peris (Eds.), El documental en
el entorno digital (pp. 81119). Barcelona: UOC.
Gonzlez Requena, J. (1992). El discurso televisivo: espectculo de la
postmodernidad. Madrid: Ctedra.
Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. Abington/New
York: Routledge.
IPCC (19882016). Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio
Climtico. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/home_languages_main_spanish.shtml
Jensen, K. (2014). La convergencia en las investigaciones sobre medios de
comunicacin. In: K. Jensen (Ed.), La comunicacin y los medios. Metodologas de
investigacin cualitativa y cuantitativa (pp. 1314). Tlalpan, Mxico: Fondo de Cultura
Econmica.
Langer, J. (1998). Tabloid televisin: Popular journalism and the other news.
London: Routledge.
Len, B. (2010). Introduccin: informacin y espectculo en un nuevo ecosistema
informativo. In: B. Len (Ed.), Informativos para la televisin del espectculo (pp.
1729). Sevilla/Zamora, Spain: Comunicacin Social.
Marcos, J. C. , & Edo, C. (2015). Anlisis de la nueva perspectiva de la document-
acin periodstica en los medios de comunicacin espaoles. Revista General de
Informacin y Documentacin, 25 (2), 389423.
Martnez Nicols, M. (2009). La investigacin sobre comunicacin en Espaa. Evolucin
histrica y retos actuales. Revista Latina de Comunicacin Social, 64, 114.
Orero, P. , & Cebrin-Enrique, B. J. (2014). Criterios de evaluacin y aplicacin de
fuentes de informacin web en centros de documentacin periodstica. El Profesional
de la Informacin, 23 (6), 612617.
Oxman, A. D. , Guyatt, G. H. , Cook, D. J. , Jaeschke, R. , Heddle, N. , & Keller, J.
(1993). An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology, 46 (9), 9871001.
Polino, C. (2001). Divulgacin cientfica y medios de comunicacin. Un anlisis de la
tensin pedaggica en el campo de la Comunicacin Pblica de la Ciencia. Tesis de
Maestra, Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnologa, Universidad
Nacional de Quilmes. Retrieved from www.unq.edu.ar/cts/cpolino
Pooley, E. (2010). The climate war. New York: Hyperion.
Powell, J. L. (2011). The inquisition of climate change. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Ramonet, I. (1998). La tirana de la comunicacin. Madrid: Debate.
Snchez Mora, A. M. (1998). La divulgacin de la ciencia como literatura. Mxico City:
National Autonomous University of Mexico.
Snchez Mora, A. M. (2002). Gua para el divulgador atribulado I: Enseanza y
aprendizaje de la divulgacin. El Mugano Divulgador, 17, 45.
Solomon, L. (2008). The deniers: The world renowned scientists who stood up
against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud. Minneapolis, MN:
Richard Vigilante Books.
76 Thussu, D. K. (2007). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment.
London: Sage.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. London: Pan Books.
Union, I. T. (2005). The Internet of Things: ITU (International Telecommunication
Union) internet reports. Executive Summary. Retrieved from
www.itu.int/net/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/The-Internet-of-Things-2005.pdf
Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and cultural form. London/New York:
Sage.
Audiovisual Formats and Content in University Corporate
Communication
Alan Pinheiro, P. (2015). Construo multimodal de sentidos em um vdeo
institucional. Veredas Atemtica, 19 (2), 209224.
Capriotti, P. (2008). Planificacin estratgica de la imagen corporativa. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Capriotti, P. (2009). Branding corporativo. Barcelona: UOC.
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Costa-Snchez, C. (2014). Storytelling y audiovisualizacin de la comunicacin
corporativa. Organicom, 11 (20), 162176.
Costa-Snchez, C. (2016). Relaciones pblicas y social media. Proactividad de las
empresas espaolas en las redes sociales audiovisuales. Revista Internacional de
Relaciones Pblicas, 11 (6), 235254.
EdX . (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved at https://www.edx.org/about-us
Galindo Rubio, F. (2005). Comunicacin audiovisual corporativa: un modelo de
produccin. In: Actas do III SOPCOM, VI LUSOCOM e II IBRICO (pp. 667675).
Covilh, Portugal: Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia.
Larrondo-Ureta, A. (2015). Organisational communication facing the challenge of
multiplatform and Web 2.0 strategy. El Profesional de la Informacin, 25 (1),
114123.
Loran, M. D. (2016). La comunicacin corporativa audiovisual: propuesta
metodolgica de estudio. Doctoral thesis. Murcia: Universidad Catlica de
MurciaUCAM.
Pew Research Center (2016). Spring global attitudes survey. Retrieved from
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/not-everyone-in-advanced-economies-
is-using-social-media/pg_17-03-08_socialmediaage_dplot/.
89 Pingdom (2017). Report: Social network demographics in 2017. Retrieved from
http://royal.pingdom.com/2017/05/10/social-media-in-2017/
Shanghai Ranking Consultancy . (2016). Academic ranking of world universities.
Retrieved at www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html
Trout, J. (2010). Repositioning: Marketing in an era of competition, change and
crisis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Xifra, J. (2006). Es marketing todo lo que reluce? La pluralidad de perspectivas
conceptuales de las relaciones pblicas. Anlisi, 34, 163180.
Yoo, J. , & Kim, J. (2012). Obesity in the new media: A content analysis of obesity
videos on YouTube. Health Communication, 27, 8697.
Entertainment in Science
Beattie, K. (2004). Documentary screens: Nonfiction film and television. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Calvo Hernando, M. (1997). Manual de periodismo cientfico. Barcelona: Bosch.
Campbell, V. (2016). Science, entertainment and television documentary. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chandler, D. , & Munday, R. (2011). Oxford dictionary of media and
communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corner, J. (2002). Performing the real: Documentary diversions. Television and
New Media, 3 (3), 255269.
Currah, A. (2009). Whats happening to our news, RISJ Challenges Series, Oxford,
UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISSJ).
Darley, A. (2003). Simulating natural history: Walking with dinosaurs as hyper-real
edutainment. Science as Culture, 12 (2), 227256.
EDN (2007). EDN TV guide. European Documentary Network. Retrieved from
www.edn.dk/
Franklin, B (1997). Newszak and News Media, London: Arnold.
Gonzlez Requena, J. (1986). El espectculo informativo o la amenaza de lo real.
Madrid: Akal.
Gopfert, W. (2006). Science as entertainment: PCST in narrative structure. In: J.
Willems & W. Gopfert (Eds.), Science and the power of TV (pp. 133139).
Amsterdam: VU University Press & Da Vinci Institute.
105 Harrington, S. (2008). Popular news in the twenty-first century: Time for a new
critical approach? Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 9(3), 266284.
Hartz, J. , & Chappell, R. (1998). Worlds apart: How the distance between science
and journalism threatens Americas future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
Hight, C. (2008). The field of digital documentary: A challenge to documentary
theorists. Studies in Documentary Film, 2(1), 37.
Holtz-Bacha, C. , & Norris, P. (2001). To entertain, inform and educate: Still the
role of public television. Political Communication, 18, 123140.
Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices,
challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9 (1), 110.
Langer, J. (1998). Tabloid televisin: Popular journalism and the other news.
London: Routledge.
Lehmkuhl, M. , Karamanidou, C. , Mr, T. , Petkova, K. , & Trench, B. (2012).
Scheduling science on television: A comparative analysis of the representations of
science in 11 European countries. Public Understanding of Science, 21 (8),
10021018.
Len, B. (1999). El documental de divulgacin cientfica. Barcelona: Paids.
Len, B. (2007). La programacin de las televisiones pblicas en Europa. La
estrategia de la adaptacin. In: F. Moreno , E. Gimnez , C. Etayo , R. Gutirrez , C.
Snchez , & J. E. Guerrero (Eds.), Los desafos de la televisin pblica en Europa.
Actas del XX Congreso Internacional de Comunicacin (pp. 7592). Pamplona:
Eunsa.
McGuigan, J. (1998). What price the public sphere?, In D. K. Thussu (Ed.)
Electronic empires: Global media and local resistance (91107). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Machin, D. & Papathoderou F. (2002). Commercialization and tabloid television in
southern Europe: Disintegration or democratization of the public sphere? Journal of
European Area Studies, 10(1), 3148.
Margolis, J. Mixed reality could overtake virtual reality. Financial Times, March 7.
Retrieved from www.ft.com/content/75e367b0-0262-11e7-aa5b-6bb07f5c8e12
Nguyen, A. (2012). The effect of soft news on public attachment to the news: Is
infotainment good for democracy? Journalism Studies, 13(56), 706717.
Patterson, Thomas (2003). The search for a standard: Market and the media,
Political Communication, 20, pp. 139143.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.
Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of
show business. New York: Penguin.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of
Social Capital in America, PS: Political Science & Politics , 28(4), 664683.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Riesch, H. (2015). Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science
communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24 (7), 768775.
106 Scott, K. (2003). Popularizing science and nature programming: The role of
spectacle in contemporary wildlife documentary. Journal of Popular Film and
Television, 31 (1), 2935.
Silverstone, R. (1984). Narrative strategies in television science: A case study.
Media, Culture and Society, 6, 377410.
Silverstone, R. (1986). The agonistic narratives of television science. In: J. Corner
(Ed.), Documentary and the mass media (pp. 81106). London: Edward Arnold.
Slater, M. & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration
likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication
Theory, 12 (2), 173191.
Statista . (2017). The statistical portal: Statistics studies from more than 18,000
sources. Retrieved from www.statista.com/statistics/591181/global-augmented-
virtual-reality-market-size/.com
Television Business International (2003). Wild at heart, JuneJuly, 1620.
Terazono, E. (2007). Serious factual programming in peak-time falls by 25% in five
years. Financial Times, April 5. Retrieved from www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9112532-
e312-11db-a1c9-
000b5df10621.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4kiOVopwQ
Thussu, D. K. (2007). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment.
London: Sage.
Union of Concerned Scientists (2016). Science and the public interest: An open
letter to president-elect Trump and the 115th congress. Retrieved from
www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-
integrity/open-letter-president-elect-trump#.WPjpr3p5H-t
Van Dijck, J. (2006). Picturizing science: The science documentary as a
multimedia spectacle. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9 (1), 524.
Vorderer, P. , Klimmt, C. , & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment at the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14 (4), 388408.
Walter, K. (2017). NASA explores virtual reality applications. Rand Magazine.
Retrieved from www.rdmag.com/article/2017/08/nasa-explores-virtual-reality-
applications
Framing in Climate Change Videos
Bain, P. G. , Hornsey, M. J. , Bongiorno, R. , & Jeffries, C. (2012). Promoting pro-
environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2 (8),
600603.
117 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, 7995.
Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media
reporting on climate change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Castree, N. (2004). Differential geographies: Place, indigenous rights and local
resources. Political Geography, 23 (2), 133167.
Chong, D. , & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in
competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57 (1), 99118.
Corbett, J. B. (2006). Communicating nature: How we create and understand
environmental messages. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derrida, J. (1978). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human
sciences. In: J. Derrida (Ed.), Writing and difference (pp. 278293). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dipensa, J. , & Brulle, R. (2003). Medias social construction of environmental
issues: Focus on global warming: A comparative study. The International Journal
of Sociology and Social Policy, 23 (10), 74105.
Doyle, J. (2007). Picturing the clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational
politics of climate change communication. Science as Culture, 16 (2), 129150.
doi:10.1080/09505430701368938
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 5158. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Feinberg, M. , & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief
in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22,
3438.
Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science.
London: Routledge.
Gifford, R. (2008). Psychologys essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate
change. Canadian Psychology, 49 (4), 273280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013234
Gifford, R. , & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived
climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global
Environmental Change, 21 (4), 13011307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representation and signifying practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hart, P. S. (2010). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate
change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science
Communication, 33 (1), 2851. doi:10.1177/1075547010366400
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding
controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jang, S. M. (2013). Framing responsibility in climate change discourse:
Ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 36, 2736.
118 Kahneman, D. , & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision
under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263292.
Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental
Communication, 4 (1), 7081.
Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk
perceptions, affective images, and interpretive communities. In: S. C. Moser & L.
Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and
facilitating social change (pp. 4463). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenzoni, I. , Nicholson-Cole, S. , & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to
engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications.
Global Environmental Change, 17 (34), 445459.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
McComas, K. , Shanahan, J. , & Butler, J. (2001). Environmental content in prime-
time network TVs non-news entertainment and fictional programs. Society and
Natural Resources, 14 (6), 533542.
Morton, T. A. , Rabinovich, A. , Marshall, D. , & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The
future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty
in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21 (1), 103109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
Moser, S. C. , & Dilling, L. (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating
climate change and facilitating social change. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Nicholson-Cole, S. (2005). Representing climate change futures: A critique on the
use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, 29 (3), 255273.
Nisbet, E. C. , Hart, P. S. , Myers, T. , & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in
competitive framing environments? Open/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and
climate change. Journal of Communication, 63 (4), 766785.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12040
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public
engagement. Environment, 51 (2), 1213.
Nordhaus, T. & Shellenberger, M. (2007). Breakthrough: From the death of
environmentalism to the politics of possibility. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
ONeill, S. , & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear wont do it: Promoting positive
engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations.
Science Communication, 30, 355e379.
Painter, J. (2011). Poles apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism
RISJ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Painter, J. , Erviti, M. C. , Fletcher, R. , Howarth, C. , Kristiansen, S. , Len, B. ,
Ouakrat, A. , Russell, A. , & Schfer, M. S. (2016). Something old, something new:
Digital media and the coverage of climate change. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK
and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 12 (Supplement 1),
S85S106.
119 Rebich-Hespanha, S. , Rice, R. E. , Montello, D. R. , Retzloff, S. , Tien, S. , &
Hespanha, J. P. (2015). Image themes and frames in US print news stories about
climate change. Environmental Communication, 9 (4), 491519.
Shah, D. V. , McLeod, D. M. , Gotlieb, M. R. , & Lee, N.-J. (2009). Framing and
agenda-setting. In: R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media
processes and effects (pp. 8398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shanahan, J. & Good, J. (2000). Heat and hot air: Influence of local temperature
on journalists coverage of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9 (3),
285295.
Shanahan, M. (2007). Talking about a revolution: Climate change and the media.
In: COP13 briefing and opinion papers. London: International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Spence, A. , & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change:
The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental
Change, 20 (4), 656667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Ungar, S. (2007). Public scares: Changing the issue culture. In: S. C. Moser & L.
Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and
facilitating social change (pp. 8289). New York: Cambridge University Press.
van der Linden, S. , Maibach, E. , & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public
engagement with climate change: Five best practice insights from psychological
science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10 (6), 758763.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516
Vlek, C. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making.
International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), 153167.
Wiest, S. L. , Raymond, L. , & Clawson, R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan
predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental
Change, 31, 187198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006
Conclusion
Aston, J. , & Gaudenzi, S. (2012). Interactive documentary: Setting the field.
Studies in Documentary Film, 6 (2), 125139.
Bourk, M. (2012). Engaging endusers in telecommunication as complementary
assets: Creating more spaces at the policy table. Policy Quarterly, 8 (1), 5964.
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology.
Communications of the ACM, 36 (12), 6677.
Erviti, M. C. , & Len, B. (2017). Participatory culture and science communication: A
content analysis of popular science on YouTube. In: C. del Valle Rojas & C.
Salgado Santamara (Eds.), Nuevas Formas de Expresin en Comunicacin (pp.
271286). Madrid: Ediciones Universitarias McGraw-Hill.
Gerbner, G. , Gross, L. , Morgan, M. , & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV
screen. Society, 18 (4), 4144.
Honnes Roe, A. (2014). The evolution of animated documentary. In: K. Nash , C.
Hight , & C. Summerhayes (Eds.), New documentary ecologies: Emerging
platforms, practices and discourses (pp. 174191). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howell, B. , & Grimes, A. (2010). Productivity questions for public sector fast fibre
network financiers. Communications and Strategies, 78 (2), 127145.
Len, B. (2007). Commercialisation and programming strategies of European public
television: A comparative study of purpose, genres and diversity. Observatorio
(*OBS) Journal, 1 (2), 81102.
Len, B. (2014). El nuevo documental y los atuendos de un gnero reinventado. In:
B. Len (Ed.), Nuevas miradas al documental (pp. 1527). Salamanca: Comunicacin
Social.
Len, B. , & Negredo, S. (2014). Documental web: Una nueva pgina para el sueo
interactivo. Telos, 96, 8292.
Lister, M. , Dovey, J. , Giddings, S. , Grant, I. , & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A
critical introduction. London: Routledge.
Lucas, C. (2017, June 12). Michael Gove is an environmental disaster waiting to
happen. Independent. Retrieved from www.independent.co.uk/voices/michael-
gove-environmental-disaster-waiting-to-happen-a7786491.html
Lucas, E. , & Nimmo, B. (2017). Information warfare: What is it and how to win it?
CEPA infowar paper no. 1. Center for European Policy Analysis. Retrieved from
http://cepa.org/index/?id=ff123d85a4be88e6892cc57e1e73d77f
Mediakicks . (2017). The Facebook video statistics everyone needs to know.
Retrieved from http://mediakix.com/2016/08/facebook-video-statistics-everyone-
needs-know/#gs.K=jlO9g
128 Nash, K. , Hight, C. , & Summerhayes, C. (Eds.) (2014). New documentary
ecologies: Emerging platforms, practices and discourses. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Neuman, R. (1991). The future of the mass audience. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schneider, H. (2010). Journalism and media lecture series: Howard Schneider
lecture on news literacy. Case Western Reserve University, YouTube. Retrieved
from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv4YgX5udlM
Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube.
Critical Discourse Studies, 7, 277289.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science
Communication, 23, 164193.
References
Hargreaves, I. , Lewis, J. , & Speers, T. (2003). Towards a better map: Science,
the public and the media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
