Filter by author: Mike S. Schäfer

Feb 23, 2026 Article

“Everything has changed”: a qualitative study of trends in university communication over the past decade

by Isabel Sörensen , Sophia Charlotte Volk , Silke Fürst , Mike S. Schäfer , Daniel Vogler

Universities are pivotal in contemporary knowledge societies, bridging science and society. Amidst societal transformations, communication has become crucial for higher education institutions (HEIs). Yet, research on university communication is limited, with few studies capturing long-term developments. This qualitative study addresses this gap by examining changes in university communication departments over the past decade in Switzerland. Semi-structured interviews with 30 communication practitioners and university leaders in eight HEIs reveal that university communication has diversified with regard to digital channels and stakeholders, intensified in terms of personnel and output, and professionalized. Moreover, some, albeit not all communication departments have increasingly aligned their communication strategies with university strategies. Despite the fact that “everything has changed”, differences exist among various types and clusters of universities. This study contributes to understanding how and why long-term changes in institutional science communication emerge. It also offers insights for communication practitioners for enhancing university communication processes and structures.

Volume 25Issue 12026

Dec 16, 2025 Practice Insight

Strengthening practice-research connections to improve evaluation: perspectives of science communication practitioners

by Ana Godinho , Sophia Charlotte Volk , Mike S. Schäfer

Researchers and practitioners have emphasised the importance of evaluating science communication, but agree that, on the one hand, much research on evaluation does not find its way into practice, and on the other, researchers do not fully benefit from the wealth of data that practitioners produce. Using semi-structured interviews with heads of communications at different research organisations in four countries we show that practitioners agree on the importance of evaluation, but that obstacles to evaluation cut across organisational characteristics and countries. Our interviews suggest that communications leaders have a strong interest in working with researchers, and we discuss their proposals for practice-research interfaces that could improve evaluation practice.

Volume 24Issue 072025

Oct 20, 2025 Article

Comparing science communication ecosystems: towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication

by Liliann Fischer , Mike S. Schäfer , Hannah Schmid-Petri

This paper proposes a framework to guide cross-national, comparative research on science communication. Current research often relies on ad-hoc criteria for selecting countries (such as geographic proximity) or on pragmatic considerations (like data availability), which may limit the ability to capture broader contexts or identify the cases best suited for analysis. Drawing on the ecosystems concept, we integrate theoretical perspectives on political systems, academic systems, and media systems to identify a set of ideational and structural factors that are essential for understanding country variations in science communication: political system settings, the role of the state/market, political attention to science communication, and societal values and norms. Based on these, we suggest (and preliminarily illustrate) a typology of four ideal-types of science communication ecosystems — public-service-oriented, market-oriented, state-centred and fragmented — that could guide and should be tested in future research.

Volume 24Issue 052025

Apr 14, 2025 Editorial

Science communication in the age of Artificial Intelligence

by Sabrina Heike Kessler , Daniela Mahl , Mike S. Schäfer , Sophia C. Volk

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming science communication. This editorial for the JCOM Special Issue “Science Communication in the Age of AI” explores the implications of AI, especially generative AI, for science communication, its promises and challenges. The articles in this Special Issue can be categorized into four key areas: (1) communication about AI, (2) communication with AI, (3) the impact of AI on science communication ecosystems, and (4) AI’s influence on science, theoretical and methodological approaches. This collection of articles advances empirical and theoretical insight into AI’s evolving role in science communication, emphasizing interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives.

Volume 24Issue 022025Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Apr 14, 2025 Essay

All Eyez on AI: a roadmap for science communication research in the age of Artificial Intelligence

by Sabrina Heike Kessler , Daniela Mahl , Mike S. Schäfer , Sophia C. Volk

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is profoundly reshaping the field of science communication research. We conducted a literature review of 35 articles published between 2002 and 2024, which reveals that research on AI in science communication is still in its infancy but growing, predominantly concentrated in Western contexts, and methodologically inclined toward quantitative approaches. The field largely focuses on communication about AI and public perceptions of AI rather than analyzing actual engagement with generative AI or its systemic impact on science communication ecosystems. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda centered on four key areas: (1) communication about AI, (2) communication with AI, (3) the impact of AI on science communication ecosystems, and (4) AI’s influence on science, theoretical and methodological approaches.

Volume 24Issue 022025Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication

by Mike S. Schäfer , Bastian Kremer , Niels G. Mede , Liliann Fischer

Generative AI like ChatGPT has been diagnosed to fundamentally impact different realms of life. This includes science communication, where GenAI tools are becoming important sources of science-related content for many people. This raises the question of whether people trust GenAI as a source in this field, a question that has not been answered sufficiently yet. Adapting a model developed by Roberts et al. [2013] and utilizing survey data from the German Science Barometer 2023, we find that Germans are rather sceptical about and do not strongly trust GenAI in science communication. Structural equation modelling shows that respondents' trust in GenAI as a source in science communication is driven strongly by their general trust in science, which is largely driven by their knowledge about science and the perception that science improves quality of life.

Volume 23Issue 092024Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments (Trust in science)

Sep 18, 2024 Essay

Evaluations in science communication. Current state and future directions

by Sophia Charlotte Volk , Mike S. Schäfer

Evaluations are becoming more important in science communication. But both science communication practitioners and researchers are not sufficiently utilizing the potential of evaluations yet. In this essay, we first define four requirements for rigorous evaluations of science communication activities and projects. To substantiate our argument, we take stock of the scientific literature, uncover deficiencies in current evaluation practices and identify potential causes. We conclude with laying out how different actors in the field — including science communication practitioners, professional associations, scientific institutions and funding bodies as well as researchers — can contribute to advancing evaluation practices in science communication as well as research on it.

Volume 23Issue 062024

May 02, 2023 Essay

The Notorious GPT: science communication in the age of artificial intelligence

by Mike S. Schäfer

ChatGPT provides original, human-like responses to user prompts based on supervised and reinforcement machine learning techniques. It has become the poster child of generative AI, which is widely diagnosed to disrupt many realms of life — including science communication. This essay reflects on this development. It discusses opportunities for the practice of science communication, such as generative AI’s translational and multimodal capacities and its capacity to provide dialogical science communication at scale, but also challenges in terms of accuracy, ‘wrongness at scale’ or job market implications. It also ponders implications for research on science communication, which has largely neglected (generative) AI so far. It argues that scholars should analyze public communication “about” AI as well as communication “with” AI, given its ‘increased agency’. Furthermore, scholars should analyze the impact of AI on science communication itself and the larger science communication ecosystem.

Volume 22Issue 022023

Dec 12, 2022 Article

Organizational and societal goals in tension? A survey of communication practitioners at Swiss higher education institutions

by Silke Fürst , Sophia Charlotte Volk , Mike S. Schäfer , Daniel Vogler , Isabel Sörensen

The public communication of higher education institutions (HEIs) has gained importance both in practice and research and can serve different goals. Many scholars argue that HEI communication departments mainly aim to promote their organization and are less concerned with broader societal goals and normative principles of communication. Since these assumptions have not yet been explored empirically, we surveyed 203 communication practitioners from all 42 Swiss HEIs on their role conceptions and the quality criteria used in their communication departments. Our results show no general dominance of organizational over societal goals and revealed few differences between different types of HEIs.

Volume 21Issue 072022

Sep 10, 2018 Article

Structure and development of science communication research: co-citation analysis of a developing field

by Adrian Rauchfleisch , Mike S. Schäfer

Since the early 1990s, there has been a considerable increase in the number of scientific studies on science communication, and this increase has been accompanied by a diversification of the research field. This study focuses on one aspect of this development: it analyses how citation network structures within the field have developed over time, and whether science communication research shows signs of becoming a research field or a discipline in its own right. Employing a co-citation analysis of scholarly publications published between 1996 and 2015, it assesses to what extent a coherent communication network exists within science communication research. The results show a field with a diverse internal structure and clear internal changes over time which suggest an increasing emancipation of the field.

Volume 17Issue 032018

Search results