This chapter examines research conducted on problems students have with academic writing, the changes over time in the institutional framework in which such writing takes place, the acquisition of academic writing skills, and university support measures. In the literature, difficulties in meeting the requirements of producing academic texts are repeatedly noted, both with respect to the writing process and to the written products. However, complaints about the quality of student writing have a long history, and are connected to what has been and is expected of students. In the early 19th century, when German university institutes (Seminar) were first created, only a handful of students were required to write texts at all. Only by the early 20th century did academic writing become a compulsory part of university study. Academic writing is interpreted here as "polydimensional", which helps explain some of the especially challenging aspects of such text production for students. Mastering this skill, this chapter argues, is part of a developmental process students undergo throughout their course of study; secondary school does not fully prepare them for this task. The final section discusses some approaches - oriented to instruction, communication, reception, or curriculum - which have been suggested for supporting the process of acquiring academic writing skills.

Never in the history of mankind have so many people been working in the scientific realm. Information and knowledge are, for everyone with unrestricted Internet access, abundantly available. But at the same time, the grand challenges of humankind, like climate change, are pressing, and fake news and distrust in scientific institutions and methods are on the rise. In this chapter I address both internal and external science communication, and both science communication practices and research on science communication, to first put together the diagnoses of current developments, second collect trends and third sketch visions for the future.

Social media enables scientists to cooperate and collaborate from various places around the world - considerably enriching their worlds intellectually. Utilising social media, researchers engage personally in processes of creation both as participants and critics, gaining access to different publics and audiences in- and outside academia. Furthermore, social media facilitates opportunities to improve traditional patterns and techniques of scholarly communication and publication. However, promises of democratisation, participation, and transparency have not yet been fulfilled, despite a flourishing practice in scholarly use of social media. It is, so it seems, a highly controversial subject, touching the fundamentals of our research culture: The ways in which research is done, organised, and published, in which knowledge is created and evaluated, and how research results are communicated with peers and larger audiences. This article addresses these interrelated questions by asking how the use of social media effects forms and principles of scholarly communication and publication in- and outside academia.

Traditional scientific policy advice used to happen behind closed doors in advisory bodies as a dialogue between scientists and policy-makers. The respective models for the interaction are basic linear arrangements assigning clear roles and primacy to one of the sides. However, these processes have been opened up following public pressure for more participation and deliberative decision-making models. Today, increasingly complex policy-decisions, like the assessment of climate change and the necessary actions to be taken, require more scientific input. At the same time, the medialization of politics and science has led to an intensified, more diverse multi- actor communication landscape. Correspondingly, also science communication does not happen in an isolated sphere, but takes place in the middle of political and societal debates - science communication is seen by some as political communication. The questions presented here are not new, but still intensely debated: What constitutes neutral science communication or policy advice and what partisan advocacy? Can so-called “scientific facts” and values be separated from each other at all? To which degree should scientists actively advocate for policy-decisions - or should they not do so? While the discussion is primarily led normatively, empirical evidence on the effects of scientific advocacy on citizens and on politicians is sparse and not painting a clear picture in this respect. This article portrays the development of the science- policy nexus and presents an overview on empirical research and the different perspectives on science advice and advocacy.

Environmental journalists, as gatekeepers, often become arbiters of risk and benefit information. This study explores how their routine news value judgments may influence reporting on marine aquaculture, a growing domestic industry with complex social and ecological impacts. We interviewed New England newspaper journalists using Q methodology, a qualitative dominant mixed-method approach to study shared subjectivity in small samples. Results revealed four distinct reporting perspectives—“state structuralist,” “neighborhood preservationist,” “industrial futurist,” and “local proceduralist”—stemming from the news value and objectivity routines journalists used in news selection. Findings suggest implications for public understanding of, and positionality toward, natural resource use and development.

In 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled against the field testing of Bt eggplant, a genetically modified crop. This decision was covered extensively in the local press, forcing scientists to defend their research. We used qualitative, inductive analysis to examine how three news outlets constructed science in their coverage of the issue. We found that science was constructed through four themes: science searched for proof, absolute consensus had to be reached, the characteristics of scientific inquiry are used to discredit scientists, and science is aware of its logical limits. These findings have implications for the public acceptance of innovations.

The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment ( N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.

Politicization of science occurs when the inherent uncertainty of science is emphasized to cast doubt on scientific consensus. Climate change has become particularly susceptible to this kind of politicization. In this article, we report the results of a survey experiment in which we manipulated text frames and visual imagery associated with two types of environmental hazards linked to climate change—sea level rise with associated flooding and increased heat levels with associated drought and wildfires. We present evidence that the use of visual imagery can counter the effects that science politicization has on climate change beliefs and behaviors.

A randomized experiment of 1,024 U.S. adults was conducted to examine the effect of the war on science frame on perceptions of scientists’ credibility. Because recent use of this frame is a response to the Trump Administration, those who politically align with him (e.g., conservatives) are likely to experience identity threat when confronted with the war on science frame. Results show that when viewed as aggressive, the war on science frame prompted conservatives to report lower agreement with a scientist credibility index than liberals, suggesting that the war on science frame has the potential to further polarize science.