Lars Guenther

Bio: Lars Guenther is an academic researcher from University of Hamburg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Science communication & Journalism. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 40 publications receiving 379 citations. Previous affiliations of Lars Guenther include University of Jena & Stellenbosch University.

Science communication and the issue of trust

Abstract: Science communication, whether internally or to the general public depends on trust, both trust in the source and trust in the medium of communication. With the new 'ecology of communication' this trust is endangered. On the one hand the very term of science communication has been captured by many different actors (e.g., governments, PR experts, universities and research institutions, science journalists, and bloggers) apart from scientists themselves to whom science communication means different things and whose communication is tainted by special interests. Some of these actors are probably more trusted by the general public than others. On the other hand, the channels that are used to communicate science are also not trusted equally. Particularly the widespread use of social media raises doubts about the credibility of the communication spread through them.

Science communication as a field of research : identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers

Abstract: CITATION: Guenther, L. & Joubert, M. 2017. Science communication as a field of research : identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 16(02):1-19, doi:10.22323/2.16020202.

Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs:

Abstract: For laypeople, media coverage of science on television is a gateway to scientific issues. Defining scientific evidence is central to the field of science, but there are still questions if news coverage of science represents scientific research findings as certain or uncertain. The framing approach is a suitable framework to classify different media representations; it is applied here to investigate the frames of scientific evidence in film clips (n = 207) taken from science television programs. Molecular medicine is the domain of interest for this analysis, due to its high proportion of uncertain and conflicting research findings and risks. The results indicate that television clips vary in their coverage of scientific evidence of molecular medicine. Four frames were found: Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy, Scientifically Certain Data, Everyday Medical Risks, and Conflicting Scientific Evidence. They differ in their way of framing scientific evidence and risks of molecular medicine.

Framing as a Concept for Health Communication: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Over the past decades, research in the fields of both framing and health communication has grown exponentially. However, to date, no systematic review has been conducted about how framing – as a co...

Scientific evidence and mass media: Investigating the journalistic intention to represent scientific uncertainty.

Abstract: Science journalists are responsible for the mass media's representation of life sciences (e.g. biotechnology, genetics, and nanotechnology) and for the depiction of research findings in these areas as more scientifically (un)certain. Although researchers have determined that the representational styles of scientific evidence vary among science journalists, the reasons for these differences have not yet been fully investigated. Against this background, for the first time, the present study applies a reasoned action approach and investigates the predictors of the journalistic intention to represent scientific uncertainty, using computer-assisted telephone interviews with a representative sample of German science journalists (n = 202). The results indicate that beliefs about the coverage of other media, perceptions regarding scientific uncertainty of the main field of coverage, perceived expectations of the audience, past behavior, and gender were the predictors that most strongly affected the journalists' intention to represent life sciences as more scientifically uncertain.