SUMMARY OF COLLABORATION

The previous results have shown that within forest science collaboration is being carried out. The type of research that is carried out in this field can explain for the collaborative

63 http://www.conicyt.cl/573/article-28133.html (last seen 21.08.08).

110

efforts made by scientists. Research in forestry generally implies field observation through extensive areas which can be more effectively carried out if various actors participate.

The collaboration that mostly takes place is national. Scientists choose to collaborate mainly with colleagues from different organizations than with colleagues from their own departments or organizations. This might be an indicator of the necessity to tap into resources that are not found within the same organization or the tendency to form various links that can help develop future research plans. It reflects that national discourses are a consequence of national collaboration.

The results have also shown that scientific collaboration has been increasing on an international level throughout the years studied, going in the same direction that the global scientific community is moving in. However it is doing so at a very slow pace, if one considers the amount of international collaboration in comparison to other types of collaboration. Using Wagner‟s (2008) terms, forest science is still a scientific field where

„scientific nationalism‟ is strong.

Additionally the international collaboration that is taking place is dominated by high income countries. The hegemony of the rich over the poorer countries continues when considering international collaboration. The control and access to the scientific information circulating within the networks of all issues are dominated, once again, by high income countries such as the United States. However, and so the importance of countries such as the United Sates is revealed, through international collaboration countries (usually those without the same economic resources than high income ones) that may not have been able to participate in discourse are doing so through the collaborative links established. However those who are mostly linked –or linked the closest- are revealed to be those who share the common language of English or those coming from Scandinavian or Northern-European countries.

Some countries have entered the discourse without the need of international collaboration; as is the case of Argentina in climate change and Mexico in forest fires and biodiversity. These countries appeared as part of the 25% mostly cited publications that formed the discourse. However, these countries cannot tap into the benefits that the involvement in the scientific global network carries with it, as their involvement in the discourse is not done through international collaboration. Thus, they lose chances to benefit from the knowledge links created in the network as well as chances to secure even further their participation in the global discourse.

4.4. MEDIALIZATION OF SCIENCE

The previous sections have dealt with characteristics of the scientific discourse on forest science and distortions that are found which causes a deviation of the discourse from the deliberative ideal. The mayor distortion that was previously considered, provoking the dominance of Center over Periphery was the economic resources of countries. Countries with higher resources were found to dominate in discourse over countries with lower resources. This distortion of the condition of free and equal participation in discourse is not the only distortion that can be expected when examining the discourse on forest

Results and Discussion

111

science. It is, however, difficult to determine why the distortions in communication occur.

Possible explanations could relate to a higher quality and more frequent communication processes of high income countries, a higher amount research occurring in these countries, a higher interest to communicate on a global level of these countries, or might be a consequence of the selection process within science. All reasonable explanations for distortions of the communication process which in future research might be examined in more detail.

Medialization is as well a distortion that occurs in a communicative process that aims to be deliberative. Science and scientists face restrictions regarding financial resources and pressures from society -and from within the scientific community- which have consequences for the type of communication that is carried out regarding forest science.

These consequences can be seen in the sphere of science as well as in the universal public sphere. As described in the theoretical background section, science wishes to appear and participate in the mass media, which is seen as the approximation of the universal public sphere, in order to gain legitimacy, participate in the agenda setting of problems relating to the forest, and eventually be noticed by those in charge of the resources that will be assigned to science. To be successful in this, the traditional model of science communication with the media must be dropped and scientists must adapt themselves to the rules set by the media. This is done by science and its scientists through the adaptation of media rules that may help position themselves in the public discourse. To be oriented to the media has as well consequences for science and the internal communication process (Weingart 2002). With this in mind, the medialization of science is then the term used to describe the orientation of science to the rules of the media. If medialization is happening in forest science, if forest science is seeking public legitimation or success regarding resources, then evidence of its occurrence will be found both in the public as well as in the scientific discourse on forest science.

In order to study whether medialization is taking place in both spheres several factors have been named that provide evidence of its occurrence. These factors will help verify or falsify the three hypotheses created earlier regarding the medialization phenomenon namely:

1. The scientific discourse on forest science is medialized 2. The public discourse on forest science is medialized

3. Scientists working in the field of forest science recognize the medialization of science

Global and national levels of analysis will be considered to further give answers to the hypotheses. These levels of analysis are chosen in order to examine whether there are differences in the media-related tools that scientists use when communicating either on the local or global level.

The factors that will be considered in order to prove the medialization phenomenon follow different theoretical and empirical works mainly that of Schäfer (2007), Weingart (2001), and Nelkin (1987). These factors are:

Extensiveness of the issues (Schäfer, 2007) Pluralization (Schäfer, 2007)

112

Controversy (Schäfer, 2007)

Communication tools (Weingart, 2001; Nelkin 1987) Politization (Weingart, 2001)

Individual scientists‟ communication behavior and organization characteristics Firstly the medialization of the scientific discourse on forest science is examined on the basis of the first five factors (extensiveness, pluralization, controversy, communication tools, and politization). Following this, the public sphere of the media is revised on the basis of the same factors. Finally, survey results of individual scientists and their communication patterns and organization characteristics are revealed.