A framing theory-based content analysis of a Turkish newspaper’s coverage of nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This study aims at examining how nanotechnology is covered in Turkish print media. As an initial part of this objective, a total of 76 articles derived from a widespread national newspaper were analyzed based on the framing theory. These articles were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative traditions of content analysis; however, the quantitative method was the primary form of investigation. The analyses showed that the first news about nanotechnology appeared in 1991 and the frequencies of articles had increased in the subsequent years; but the number of articles had decreased after a while. The findings demonstrated a remarkable positive tone in the articles; there were only a few articles in negative tones and these articles were published in the first years of nanotechnology news. It was further found that the articles were mostly concerned with the implementations of nanotechnology, such as research and education centers, medical, and electronics. The study also investigated the presentation style of nanotechnology news. In other words, it investigated how the articles were framed. The results showed that the articles were mostly framed with scientific researches or discoveries and future expectations.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Media Studies and Communication · Misinformation and Its Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (64)
Show source-provided references
1. Aksoy S (2012) Framing the debates regarding to genetically modified organisms in the Turkish press. J Selcuk Commun 7:191–205
2. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinsonn C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Comm 27:200–22010.1177/1075547005281472 ↗
3. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, New York10.1057/9780230234574 ↗
4. Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Hafner, New York
5. Berg BL (2001) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston
6. Çalık M, Sözbilir M (2014) Parameters of content analysis. Edu Sci 39:33–38
7. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotech 1:153–15510.1038/nnano.2006.155 ↗
8. de Vreese CH (2005) News framing: theory and typology. Inform Design J 13:51–6210.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre ↗
9. de Vreese CH, Peter J, Semetko HA (2001) Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: a cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Polit Commun 18:107–12210.1080/105846001750322934 ↗
10. Deacon D, Pickerıng M, Golding P, Murdock G (1999) Researching communications: a practical guide to methods in media and cultural analysis. Arnold, London
11. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2012) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun 34:5–2910.1177/1075547011417892 ↗
12. Dudo A, Choi D, Scheufele DA (2011a) Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–8910.1016/j.appet.2010.11.143 ↗
13. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011b) The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Quart 88:55–7510.1177/107769901108800104 ↗
14. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Aust J Commun 43:51–5810.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ↗
15. Entman RM, Rojecki A (1993) Freezing out the public: elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Polit Commun 10:155–17310.1080/10584609.1993.9962973 ↗
16. Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Soc 95:1–3710.1086/229213 ↗
17. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Pub Underst Sci 14:81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
18. Groboljsek B, Mali F (2012) Daily newspapers’ views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Sci Commun 34:30–5610.1177/1075547011427974 ↗
19. Hallahan K (1999) Seven models of framing: implications for public relations. J Pub Relat Res 11:205–24210.1207/s1532754xjprr1103_02 ↗
20. Halloran JD (1998) Mass communication research: asking the right questions. In: Hansen A, Cottle S, Negrine R, Newbold C (eds) Mass communication research methods. Macmillan, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London
21. Igartua JJ, Cheng L, Muniz C (2005) Framing Latin America in the Spanish press: a cooled down friendship between two fraternal lands. Commun: The Eur J Commun Res 30:359–37210.1515/comm.2005.30.3.359 ↗
22. Karamanlıoğlu EB, Güzeloğlu C (2010) Frames about nanotechnology agenda in Turkish media, 2005–2009. Int J Soc Behav Edu Eco and Manag Eng 4:67–74
23. Kjærgaard RS (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Pub Underst Sci 19:80–9710.1177/0963662508093090 ↗
24. Kohring M, Matthes J (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology. Pub Underst Sci 11:143–15410.1088/0963-6625/11/2/304 ↗
25. Kondracki NL, Wellman NS (2002) Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition researches. J Nutr Edu Behav 34:224–23010.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3 ↗
26. Kulve HT (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci as Cult 15:367–38210.1080/09505430601022692 ↗
27. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–17410.2307/2529310 ↗
28. Lemańczyk S (2011) European societies and emerging technologies—debate on nanotechnology in Polish and Swedish press. Int J Soc Sci Hum Stud 3:1309–8063
29. Lemańczyk S (2012) Between National Pride and the scientific success of “others”: the case of polish press coverage of nanotechnology, 2004–2009. NanoEthics 6:101–11510.1007/s11569-012-0150-6 ↗
30. Lemańczyk S (2013) Debate on nanotechnology in the Swedish daily press 2004–2009. Innov: The Eur J Social Sci Res 26:344–353
31. Lemańczyk S (2014) Science and National Pride: the Iranian press coverage of nanotechnology, 2004–2009. Sci Commun 36:194–21810.1177/1075547013516873 ↗
32. Ling A (2005) A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues https://www.nanotechproject.org/publications . Accessed 11 June 2016
33. Listerman T (2010) Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: international comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Underst Sci 19:5–15
34. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28:587–60410.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x ↗
35. Macnamara J (2005) Media content analysis: its uses, benefits and best practice methodology. Asia Pac Pub Relat J 6:1–3410.1093/irap/lci133 ↗
36. Maher MT (2001) Framing: an emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting? In: Reese SD, Gandy OH, Grant AE (eds) Framing public life: perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ, pp 83–94
37. Mali F, Groboljsek B (2012) Daily newspapers’ views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Sci Commun 34:30–5610.1177/1075547011427974 ↗
38. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Wilkins L, Zakharova L (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Underst Sci 16:183–20310.1177/0963662506065054 ↗
39. Matthes J, Kohring M (2008) The content analysis of media frames: toward improving reliability and validity. Aust J Commun 58:258–27910.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x ↗
40. Metag J, Marcinkowski F (2014) Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism 15:463–48110.1177/1464884913491045 ↗
41. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, California
42. Miller MM (1997) Frame mapping and analysis of news coverage of contentious issues. Soc Sci Comp Rev 15:367–37810.1177/089443939701500403 ↗
43. Miller JD (2006) Civic scientific literacy in Europe and the United States. A paper presented to the annual meeting of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Canada
44. Neuendorf K (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, California
45. Newbold C, Boyd-Barrett O, Van Den Bulck H (2002) The media book. Arnold, London
46. Olausson U (2009) Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Underst Sci 18:421–43610.1177/0963662507081242 ↗
47. Özdem Y, Çavaş P, Çavaş B, Çakıroğlu J, Ertepınar H (2010) An investigation of elementary students’ scientific literacy levels. J Baltic Sci Edu 9:6–19
48. Peterson A, Anderson A (2009) Scientists, nanotechnologies and the media. Issues 87:26–30
49. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Aust J Commun 49:103–12210.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x ↗
50. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
51. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. Aust J Commun 57:9–20
52. Semetko HA, Valkenburg PM (2000) Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Aust J Commun 50:93–10910.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x ↗
53. Senocak E (2014) A survey on nanotechnology in the view of the Turkish public. Sci Tech Soc 19:79–9410.1177/0971721813514265 ↗
54. Shoemaker P, Reese S (1996) Mediating the message: theories of influences on mass media content. White Plains, New York
55. Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies in nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:837–84610.1080/10807039.2010.501255 ↗
56. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–19910.1177/1075547005281520 ↗
57. Stokes J (2003) How to do media & cultural studies. Sage Publication, London
58. Strekalova YA (2015) Informing dissemination research: a content analysis of U.S. newspaper coverage of medical nanotechnology news. Sci Commun 37:151–17210.1177/1075547014555025 ↗
59. Ten Eyck TA (2005) The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows or walls? Public Underst Sci 14:305–31610.1177/0963662505052888 ↗
60. Thompson S (2011) News about nanotechnology: a longitudinal framing analysis of newspaper reporting on nanotechnology. Bournemouth University, Dissertation
61. Tubitak (2004) National Science and Technology Policies of Turkey https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/vizyon2023/Vizyon2023_Strateji_Belgesi.pdf . Accessed 31 May 2017
62. Van Gorp B (2005) Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. Eur J Commun 20:485–50810.1177/0267323105058253 ↗
63. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain. Public Underst Sci 20:195–20610.1177/0963662509350139 ↗
64. Veltri GA, Crescentini A (2011) The anchoring of nanotechnology in the Spanish National Press. The Int J Sci in Soc 2:127–13710.18848/1836-6236/CGP/v02i02/51243 ↗