283.full

5/25/2018 283.full

1/27

http://scx.sagepub.com/Science Communication

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250297

2003 24: 283Science Communication

Rebecca Dumlao and Shearlean DukeThe Web and E-Mail in Science Communication

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Science CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - Mar 1, 2003Version of Record>>

by guest on February 12, 2013scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283http://www.sagepublications.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.refs.htmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/content/24/3/283http://scx.sagepub.com/

5/25/2018 283.full

2/27

10.1177/1075547002250297ARTICLESCIENCE COMMUNICATIONDumlao, Duke / THE WEB AND E-MAIL IN COMMUNICATION

The Web and E-Mail

in Science Communication

REBECCA DUMLAO

East Carolina University

SHEARLEAN DUKEWestern Washington University

Using open-ended interviews, researchers identified twelve themes concerning Web and e-mail

use by science writers. The Web and e-mail speed information between sources, reporters,

editors, and audiences. Skepticism about information quality leads science writers to urge

practices of good judgment by Webusers. A diagramillustrates ways speeds information is

changing journalisticwork. Suggestions concerning future research on diffusion of information

are offered.

Keywords:e-mail; World Wide Web; Internet; science writers; journalism

Journalists work in a professiondependent on accurate and timely informa-

tion. In the past, gathering that information often meant poring through

papers, visiting dozensof reliable experts, andtelephoning sources in distant

locations. Thanks to the Internet, all that has changed. Specifically, two fea-

tures of the Internetthe World Wide Web and electronic mail (e-mail)

have helped bringabout thischange. Today, journalists cansearch documents

onlineand chatwith experts without leaving theoffice. As for telephoning

sources, many journalists now opt for e-mail.

AuthorsNote:Address correspondence to Rebecca Dumlao, Department of Communication

and Broadcasting, East Carolina University, 103 Joyner East, Greenville, NC 27858; phone:252-328-1512; fax: 252-328-1509; e-mail: [email protected].

Science Communication, Vol. 24 No. 3, March 2003 283-308

DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250297

2003 Sage Publications

283

http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/

5/25/2018 283.full

3/27

Researchers are increasingly studying these new technologies. The

Middleberg/Ross Survey of Media in the Wired World discovered that

among theprintandbroadcast journalists they surveyed, e-mailnow matches

the telephone as a preferred method of communicating with sources

(Middleberg/Ross 2000). Garrison (1995, 1997, 2000) has called computer-

assisted reporting the dominant new news-gathering tool of the decade.

This article reports results of recentopen-ended interviews with members

of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW)1

seeking to under-

stand more about how science journalists use e-mail and the Web in their

work andhow their livesare changingas a resultof using these new technolo-

gies. Our interviews follow up an earlier two-part survey study of NASW

members concerning how these journalists use e-mail and the Web to go

about news making (Trumbo et al. 2001).

Science Journalism and the Internet

Even though today theWebis a household word, the Web itself is a little

more than a decadeold. Itbegan in1989 as a collaborativeproject designed to

make communication easier among scientific researchers around the world

(Marlow 1996). E-mail also was used early and frequently in the scientific

community to facilitate communication (Aborn 1988). This early use of the

Web ande-mailamongthescientific communitymakes thescience beatan

interesting one to explore.

Journalistswhospecialize incovering science havemuch incommonwith

other journalists. For example, they must research and write their storiesusing the same guidelines and techniques that other journalists use. They

must write clearly in jargon-free language that the average reader can under-

stand. Theymust sift through information from public relations practitioners

at universities, private research organizations, government agencies, phar-

maceutical companies, nonprofit health associations, and public relations

firms(Duke 2002). In addition, they must research very complex subjects on

deadline, including conducting interviews with multiple scientific sources

(Conrad 1999).

In todaysfast-paced world in whichscience advancesrapidly, the science

journalistplays an important role. Stories writtenby these journalistsserveas

theprimary waythat most people learn about science (Nelkin 1995).Science

journalism as we know it today has grown rapidly since World War II

(Meadows 1986). As Rogers (2000) pointed out, one main reason for thegrowth in science reporting is that people are very interested in science. She

cited the success of television programs such as NOVAand the increasing

284 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION


5/25/2018 283.full

4/27

popularity of science books directed to general audiences as support for this

contention.

Use and Growth of E-Mail

The use of e-mail has been the subject of communication research for

about two decades. Many studies focused on the technological efficiency of

e-mail; many dealt with e-mail use within organizations (Althaus 1997;

Garton and Wellman 1995; Rice and Case 1983; Schmitz and Fulk 1991;

Steinfield 1983, 1986a, 1986b). Researchers such as Kiesler, Siegel, and

McGuire (1984) lookedat the social andpsychological implications of com-

municating with e-mail versus more traditional methods of communication.

They found that people using e-mail appeared to be less inhibited than those

communicating face to face. Sproull and Kiesler (1991) concluded that

e-mail not only affects how people work together but also can influence the

structure of an organization. Phillips and Eisenberg (1993) pointed out that

e-mailcan beused toaccomplish strategicgoalswithinan organizationalset-

ting. Schaefermeyer andSewell (1988) found that e-mailwas replacingother

forms of communication, including telephone, letters, and face-to-face

communication.

Today, e-mail use is pervasive, with users ranging from major corpora-

tionsto academic institutions (Hunter andAllen1992). Instructors usee-mail

to enhance classroominstruction (Dorman 1998), health careresearchers use

e-mail to synthesize data (Bunting and Russell 1998), and petrochemical

organizations use e-mail to do research (Schmitz and Fulk 1991). The Elec-tronic Messaging Association, a group funded by corporate e-mail users,

estimates that the largest two thousand U.S. corporations have five million

employees who share 6.1 billion e-mail messages each year (Ey 1995).

Rogen International, which studied the effectiveness of e-mail and face-to-

face communication in the workplace, found that e-mail use has grown by

more than 600 percent in six years (Crowther and Goldhaber 2001).

Importantly, Dimmick, Kline, and Stafford (2000) discovered nearly half

of their respondents reported using the telephone less frequently since they

began using e-mail. E-mail was noted to be superior in fitting into peoples

work schedules and allowing them to communicate readily across different

time zones. On the other hand, the phone provided greater sociability for

respondents. These researchers concluded that telephone and e-mail both

have broad niches that are not in direct competition with each other and arenot substitutes foroneanother. Flaherty, Pearce, andRubin(1998) drew simi-

lar conclusions in their study, pointing out that e-mail is functionally

Dumlao, Duke / THE WEB AND E-MAIL IN COMMUNICATION 285


5/25/2018 283.full

5/27

specialized, serving as a unique communication channel that enhances but

does not duplicate other communication methods.

E-Mail and Science

E-mail was used early and frequently in the scientific community (Aborn

1988) and has been studied by Selnow (1988), Lievrouw and Carley (1990),

and Trumbo et al. (2001). As Lievrouw and Carley pointed out, NASAcame

upwiththeword telescience to describehowscientists livingin different geo-

graphic areas used e-mailto communicateandcollaborate.E-mailuse is now

widespread in American science (Walsh et al. 2000). E-mail also seems well

suited for journalists who rely on it to keep in touch with their offices and to

communicate with sources thousands of miles away (Cochran 1997). In fact,

98 percent of journalists responding to theSeventhAnnual Middleberg/Ross

(2000) survey said they check their e-mail at least once a day and spend fif-

teen hours a week reading and sending e-mail. Because the response rate for

theMiddleberg/Ross survey is low(10percent across all seven studies),those

numbers maybe inflated.However, when allstudies areconsidered together,

we know that journalists are using e-mail at a dramatically increasing rate.

Use and Growth of the Web

Today, nearly a half billion people worldwide have Internet home access

(Nielsen/NetRatings 2002). In theUnitedStates, more than half of allhouse-holds have a computer, and more than 80 percent of these households have

access to the Internet (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). Vinton Cerf

(2000), known as thefather of theInternet,estimatedthat about 75 percent of

traffic on the Internet is on the World Wide Web, which is fast becoming one

of the worlds leading forms of communication.

Although the Web is only a little more than a decade old, it has been the

subject of much communication research. Johnson (1997) gathered detailed

information about how public relations practitioners use the Web, particu-

larly as a way to reach specific audiences, and Thomsen (1995) examined

online tools for issue management. Others have concentrated on Web use

within organizations(Esrock andLeichty 1998;GruppandMargaritis 2000).

The Webs use in health communication has been the subject of several

researchers, including Harris (1995); Chamberlain (1996); Cassell, Jackson,and Cheuvront (1998); and McMillan (1999). The Web as an advertising

medium has also been examined, with researchers discovering that Web



5/25/2018 283.full

6/27

advertisers need to do more to attract readers than advertisers in a traditional

print medium (Sundar et al. 1998).

The Web and Journalism

More relevant to this article is the use of the Web in journalism. Cochran

(1997)pointed out that journalists aremakingtheWeb part of their daily rou-

tines and in so doing are reshaping the profession. Garrisons (2000) most

recent study examinedjournalistsuseof theWorld Wide Web fornews gath-

ering anddiscovered a significant growthin theuseof theWebbetween 1996

and 1997. He discovered that journalists had few problems with the technol-

ogyinvolvedinonlinereporting but that they didsometimes havetroublever-

ifying facts and establishing source credibility on the Web.

Sourcecredibility is a subject of much concern to journalists, who rely on

experts, ranging from scientists to government officials, for nearly every-

thing they write. Sundar and Nass (2001) suggested that with new online

technology, manifestations of new technology such as a Web page may now

beconsidered asource by some users,creatingconfusion. As Weise (1997)

pointed out, reporters who use the Web as a research tool may encounter

rumors and lies presented as facts and truth. Journalists have an ethical obli-

gation to ensure that what they report is accurate (Ketterer 1998). Yet just

about anyone with a computer can create a Web page and post credible-

sounding information online. So, even as some journalists enthusiastically

embrace theWebas a research tool (Middleberg/Ross 2000),many also com-

plain about having to sift through useless information to find relevant andcredible information (Houston 1999).

Still, most researchers agree that todays journalist must learn how to use

these new online tools (Graves 2000; Splichal 1993; Wendland 1996). Dav-

enport, Fico, and Weinstock (1996) went so far as to predict that these new

tools will require a differentkind of reporter, onewith a new mix of skillsthat

rely less on observation and interviews and more on electronic information.

The Web presents a challenge to newspapers, which according to Singer

(2001) must reassess their roles as they move online.

This new world of communication technology provides many challenges

formass communication researchers,whohavea lot to learn about how jour-

nalists use the Internet (Stempel and Stewart 2000). Ultimately, the Web

presents challenges to journalism educators, who must teach their students

how to use these new tools and, importantly, how to evaluate online sources(Ketterer 1998). For all these reasons, the Internet provides many important

opportunities for communication research.



5/25/2018 283.full

7/27

Diffusion and Innovation

This article is limited to how the World Wide Web and e-mail are used by

onespecific group of journalists: science writers. As a theoretical framework

for the study, we turn to the diffusion theory, which describes how innova-

tions spread throughout society. According to Rogers ([1983] 1995), a qual-

ity of innovativeness is related to a persons willingness to try new prod-

ucts. Therefore, diffusion theory may be applied to the Internet, potentially

yielding important information about early users.

Researchers have used diffusion theory to look at computers in general

(Dutton, Rogers, and Jun 1987), at gender differences in adoption behavior

(Gefen and Straub 1997), and at news media consumption and technology

adoption (Reagan 1989, 1991). Having a favorable attitude about innovationand change and having some experience with computers can make a differ-

ence in adoption (Minsky and Marin 1999). The ease of learning and being

able to show the benefits of using new systems may also lead to successful

adoptionof technology (Adamsand Nelson1992;Hunter andAllen1992).

This article does notattempt to provide a complete discussion of diffusion

theory that is discussedelsewhere. However, it is important to remember that

in the diffusion process, Rogers identifies five categories of adopters. These

areas follows: innovators, eager to trynew ideas;early adopters,high degree

of opinion and leadership; early majority, interact frequently with peers but

seldom hold leadership roles; late majority, skeptical and often adopt out of

economicnecessity;and laggards, traditionalistsfor whom thepointof refer-

ence is the past.

In a study linking diffusion theory to Internet use, Howard, Raine, andJones (2001) found that an Internet users willingness to be innovative, as

definedby Rogers, wasmoreimportant thandemographics inpredictingpeo-

ples feelings about anduse of theNet. These researchers identified four cate-

gories of Internet users: Netizens, innovative and aggressive users who have

incorporatedtheInternetinto their work andhome lives; utilitarians, whouse

the Internet as a tool and log onfrom homeeverydaybut are lessintentin use;

experimenters, whouse the Internet to retrieve information; and newcomers,

who are still learning their way around the Internet.

Trumbo et al. (2001) recently used thediffusion framework to analyze the

spread of Internet use among science writers. In their two-part study, these

researchers found that the diffusion-based concept of favorableness pre-

dicted an enthusiasm for the Web among the journalists surveyed.



5/25/2018 283.full

8/27

Study Design and Research Questions

This research project extends thework by Trumbo et al. (2001) that deter-

mined that Web and e-mail use by NASW members is firmly established.

These researchers speculated that because of the technologically advanced

nature of the science beat, science journalists might be ahead of typical jour-

nalists when it comes to using the Internet.

We wantedto investigate theprocesses andmeanings involved inWeb and

e-mail use, so we elected to complete a series of in-depth interviews with a

subset of the NASW survey participants. Like Kerlinger and Lee (2000), we

assumed that the interview could be an indispensable research tool allow-

ing us to adapt to many kinds of respondents and explore our topic in depth

(p. 699).To guide our work, we set three goals. The first was togather rich descrip-

tions from these science journalists so we might identify and detail thematic

ways e-mailand theWebare changing science journalism. Thesecond wasto

developa diagram to help explain themost noteworthy changes related to the

use of e-mail and the Web in the work of the science writers we contacted.

Thethirdwasto consider how allthis informationmight enlightenour under-

standing of diffusion theory.

Drawing on those goals, our literature review, and earlier findings, we

posed the following research questions about e-mail:

Research Question 1: How has e-mail changed the work process for sciencejournalists?

Research Question 2:How are science journalists using e-mail in their work?Research Question 3: Howdo science journalists feel about e-mails influence ontheir field of work generally and on their own work specifically?

We also posed the following questions about the Web:

Research Question 4:How has the Web changed work for science journalists?Research Question 5:How are science journalists using the Web in their work?Research Question 6:How do science journalists feel about the Webs influence

on their field of work generally and on their own work specifically?Research Question 7:Do science journalists express concern about the quality of

Web-based information?

Finally, we posed the following questions about these new technologies:

Research Question 8:What consistent patterns between themes do the journalistsexpress related to the use of e-mail and the Web?



5/25/2018 283.full

9/27

Research Question 9:Do these interviews inform our understanding of diffusionof information via e-mail and the Web in any way(s)?

Method

To answer these questions, we used open-ended phone interviews with a

semistructured interview guide approach similar to that discussed by

Patton (1990). That is, topics and issues were specified in advance, but each

interviewerwas free todeterminethe sequenceandwordingofquestionsdur-

ing the interview.

A total of thirty-six survey respondents had previously indicated that they

would be willing to be interviewed. So, we contacted each potential inter-

viewee by e-mail to determine whether he or she was still interested and toestablish a specific time for the phone call. We interviewed twenty individu-

als from that pool of respondents.

Thescience writers we contactedworked fora variety of science informa-

tionoutlets includingnewspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the Web.

Moreover, they represented a cross-section of careers related to science jour-

nalism. Eleven identified themselves as freelancers, two identified them-

selves as editors, and the rest identified themselves as writers or reporters.

While a few of the writers covered medicine or healthexclusively, most cov-

ered a broad range of scientific topics. All of those we interviewed had cov-

ered science for at least five years, with about half working in this specialty

area for ten years or more.

Each phone interview lasted twenty to thirty minutes and was tape-

recorded after receiving verbal permission from the respondent. All com-

pleted interviews were transcribed, save one that was inaudible. We con-

ducted an additional interview to replace that one and bring our sample up to

twenty. (A listing of the interview questions can be found in Appendix A.)

Following Boyatzis (1998), we decided to use each interview as a unit of

analysis and to look at the response toeachquestion as the unit of coding. We

wantedto inductivelyidentifythemes or recurringideas tousefor a later con-

tent analysis across all interviews. Thus, we used a data-driven approach to

coding that followed five steps: (1) reducing the raw information, (2) identi-

fying themes within subsamples, (3) comparing themes across subsamples,

(4) creating a code, and (5) determining the reliability of the code.

A theme was defined operationally as specific keywords or implied ideas

to identify a pattern found in the information thatat a minimum describesand organizes the possibleobservationsandat maximum interprets aspects

of thephenomenon being studied (Boyatzis1998, 4).Potentialthemes were



5/25/2018 283.full

10/27

identified using the written transcriptions by two trained coders working

independently. One coder found fifteen themes present in the interviews,

while the other coder found only twelve. Since the same twelve themes had

been identifiedbyboth coders, thedecisionwas made tousethemtoestablish

a preliminary codebook.

Becausewe wanted to ensure high-qualitycodes, thecodedeveloper spec-

ified five things for each theme: (1) a label or name, (2) a definition of what

the theme concerns (i.e., thecharacteristicsor issues constituting the theme),

(3) a description of how to know when the theme occurs (i.e., indicators to

flag the theme), (4) exclusions or special conditions, and (5) examples,

positive and negative, to eliminate confusion when coding (see Boyatzis

1998, 53).

Once the codebook was developed, the codes were applied to a subset ofsix interviews by two different coders. Intercoder reliability was calculated

using this formula for a coefficient of reliability:

CR = 2M

N1+ N2,

whereCR = coefficient of reliability,M= numberof codingdecisionsagreed

on,andN= total numberof codingdecisions made byeach coder (Poindexter

and McCombs 2000).

Our initial coefficients of reliability (or what Boyatzis [1998] called per-

centage agreement on presence) were as follows: facilitates communication,

100 percent agreement; e-mail interviews, 83 percent agreement; spans geo-

graphical boundaries and time zones, 100 percent agreement; research tool,

100 percent agreement; skepticism, 83 percent agreement; changes personal

contact, 66 percent agreement; speeds information, 83 percent agreement;

increases productivity, 83 percent agreement; reduces paper, 83 percent

agreement; enthusiasm for Web and e-mail, 83 percent agreement; work

hours expand, 100 percent agreement; and good judgment, 83 percent

agreement.

To raise the reliability for the changes personal contact theme, we

reviewed all coding decisions and modified the codebook description to

avoid future discrepancies. The revised description was applied to six addi-

tional interviews independently by both coders, resulting in 100 percent

agreement. We incorporated all the reliable descriptions into the final

codebook to use for our analysis.Detailed notes were kept by the primary researcher about what keywords

or ideas accompanied the expression of each theme when the analysis was



5/25/2018 283.full

11/27

being conducted. These notes were later used to identify patterns in themes

across interviews or to locate differences between the ways interviewees

talked about a particular theme.

Notes were also kept about potential relationships between themes for

later exploration using all the interviews. Morse (1994) called this process

synthesizing to describe thedevelopment of a compositeor typical pattern

of behavior while still identifying variations in the data. Both primary

researchers completed this portion of the analysis process. Together, we

developed and confirmed elements that would eventually become the dia-

grams shown in the Results section. Finally, we asked questions and looked

for answers to try to link our data to diffusion theory.

Results

The science writers we spoke with recognized the potential inherent in

e-mail and the Web to transform the practices of sharing scientific informa-

tion as well as to transformtheir daily work practices. They spoke of changes

that had already occurred, changes anticipated as the new technologies

become refined, and changes that would come about as they find ways to use

thenewtools moreeffectively. Twelve different themes concerningthe useof

e-mail and the Web were uncovered in our interviews. These themes are

explained further in Appendix B.2

Our first set of research questions considered the impact of e-mail on sci-

ence communication. Specifically, research question 1 asked how e-mail

changed thework process for science journalists. The responses we receivedindicated that changes caused by e-mail were substantial! Every single per-

son we interviewed agreed that e-mail has changed the way journalists work

by facilitating communication with sources, with other journalists, and with

the audiences or readers they seek to inform.

They describedin detailhow this changeworks as they answered research

question 2, which asked how science journalists arenow using e-mail in their

work.Interspersedwiththosedescriptions wereanswers to researchquestion

3, which asked how they felt about e-mails influence on their field of work

andon their ownworkspecifically. Forinstance,respondents repeatedly used

words such asefficiencyandeasieras they described ways they incorporate

e-mail in their daily work. A few respondents also pointed out thedownsides

of using e-mail.

One writer stated simply, E-mail is a tool of convenience (interview 4).This convenience, many noted, is particularly important in contacting the



5/25/2018 283.full

12/27

busy scientists and medical professionals who serve as primary sources for

rapidly changing scientific information. Another science writer said,

Its simply easier to contact people and to ask them specific questions. . . . Itmakes itconvenientwhen people arebusy . . . andreporters and scientists are. Itmakes it convenient in a way [the] telephone never was. . . . It makes me a lotmore efficient in terms of aiming what Im doing, in putting my efforts in theright place, not wasting time. (Interview 2)

Another respondentremarked,It [e-mail]has become kindof indispensable

as a system ofkeeping in touch withpeople. Youcan keep in touch withmore

people. You can communicate better (interview 3). Similarly, another

respondent pointed out that e-mail was the main mode of communication

with my clients (interview 14).Several interviewees pointed out that previously reluctant sources

respond more readily using e-mail. Thus, they could get sources via e-mail

that they would not get otherwise.

A lot of people who wont pick up their phone will respond to e-mail becausetheyre on their computers a lot, or they just dont like talking on the phone. Alot of times what Ill do is Ill send an e-mail to researchers saying, Saw yourpaper, Im interested in writing about it. Is there a time we can set up totalk? . . . It leaves it up to them and their discretion when they can respond.(Interview 12)

E-mailserves as a sourceof information inother ways as well. Most of our

intervieweesmentionedusing e-mail information thatcomesto themthrough

listservs or other means to gather important scientific information.

I tend to use e-mail, not to receive press releases, but to receive what I call fil-tered information. That is, particular sources that sift through research infor-mationand prepare digests,and I thinkmany, most of theideas we getnow forarticlescome from these sort of e-maildigeststhat weve subscribed to. (Inter-view 10)

Others do more enthusiastically receive press releases, especially from

respected sources they have learned to trust.

Im on listservs and automatic press release alerts. . . . I get his little digest ofleads three or four times a week, and I get them from Johns Hopkins Univer-

sity. . . the bestin the country. . . . I mean[these sources] are amazing atgettingcoverage of their stuff, simply because they have such a great e-mail alert sys-tem. (Interview 8)



5/25/2018 283.full

13/27

Respondents alsocommentedconsistently thate-mail is helpful inclarify-

ing information or doing follow-up questioning.

It [e-mail] facilitates review of the more technical articles also because now Ican write it, send it to my researchers to look through, do a fast check if youwill, and they can have it back to me in a couple of days. The mail would havetaken longer than that. (Interview 5)

Similarly, one science editor remarked,

You can kick back pieces of text with comments, and then comments on thecomments and so forth, so easy to forward, cut and paste, show it to everyone,send copies around, have it checked a lot of ways. (Interview 10)

E-mail also helps contact new or difficult to reach sources in distant loca-

tions, helping to span boundaries that existed when using previous means of

connecting.

At the moment, Im sitting in a cabin in the Sierra foothills. And this morningalready, Ive communicated witha doctor in Chicago for the ArthritisFounda-tion,withan ALS[amyotrophic lateral sclerosis] specialist in London . . . withan editorat Planet RXin SanFrancisco . . . with my Web site technician whosinCanada . . . with a formerreporter andherNeimanFellowship atHarvard. . . .And thats just this morning. (Interview 1)

Several mentioned not only the ease in contacting distant sources but

pointed out that e-mail helps in interpreting when languages are different.

I think it alsosmoothes out thelanguage difficulty. Sometimes its justeasier toread English or read French or whatever the language may be, rather than tohave to decipher it on the fly. (Interview 5)

Time is also a previous barrier that is now alleviated through e-mail commu-

nication. For example, another science writer said that with e-mail,

youre notlimited by the time available. It used to be that you couldonly com-municate with people, you know, basically during working hours. . . . But youcan send an e-mail in the middle of the night and get your answer in the morn-ing. It has expanded the time available to communicate. (Interview 3)

The science writers we spoke with differed in whether they chose to docompletely e-mail interviews. Some seemed to prefer this means for their

interviews:



5/25/2018 283.full

14/27

In about, say, twenty-four [to] forty-eight hours, I had managed to talk to peo-ple in Israel, Japan, Switzerland, England, allaround theworld.And itwas justremarkable to me that I was able to reach these [busy] people to get the infor-mation I needed, and to be able to do it so rapidly, and not to be chasing afterthem by telephone, which would have been my practice before. It was a realtime-saver for me. (Interview 9)

Other respondents still rely on traditional means of personal contact with

sources:

I still need tohavea voiceunless Imveryclose toa source. I still needpersonalcontact from time to time. There may be times when youre tempted to cut acorner because of time pressureand you need to be very careful how you dothat, but it simply is a time-saver and you need to use good judgment in decid-

ing whenan e-mailinterview isas good asa voice interview. . . . Voice isstilltheultimate. (Interview 6)

Overall, our respondents seemed to agree that e-mail is facilitating com-

munication, and most regarded the way it is changing their work positively,

although some problems with e-mail communication in widely distributing

inaccurate information were noted. The respondents we talked to seemed to

agree with the idea expressed by one: The thing that is really changing the

practice of journalism is e-mail. E-mail has changed the nature of communi-

cation (interview 2).

The second group of questions we asked dealt with the ways the Web is

being incorporated into the practice of contemporary science communica-

tion. Researchquestion 4 askedabout how theWebhas changed work forsci-

ence journalists.Everyone agreed that theWeb haschanged work forsciencejournalists significantly. Interviewees were quick to share information about

how the Web was changing their work, as described below.

However, the Web was not seen as positively overall as the use of e-mail

had been. Research question 7 concerned how respondents evaluated the

quality of Web-based information. Results were consistent: most sources in

our study expressed skepticism about using information from the Web.

Thetroublewith theWebis thatyou have toconsider thesource.Yeah, if youregoing toThe Washington PostorThe New York Times, youre going to get agoodlevel of trust.But theres a lot ofgarbageout there. A lotof garbage, andalot of it is very hard tosee whether or not its commercial. . . . Even the Ameri-can Cancer Society has an axe to grind, has an agenda, has a bias. It may be a

perfectly good bias, but its there. Theyve got their own little mind-set. Any-body can put up a Web site about a disease and sometimes these are very, veryhelpful, but sometimes theyrenot.. . . Theresa lot of rumor. . . . Theresa lot ofplain garbage. (Interview 7)



5/25/2018 283.full

15/27

I dont like chatlines; I dont do that stuff. It wouldbe like using as sources thepeople in the corner McDonalds. Theres no way Im going to be able to trustanything like that. (Interview 8)

Still,others said that they were notmore skepticalof Web information than of

information from other, more traditional journalistic sources.

Ill treat it [a news release or a statement released by the government over theWeb] the same way I treat paper coming through the mail that was issued by agovernment agency, a university, a company . . . an environmental group orsome other interest group. It goes through the same filter. There is obviously alot of junk out there. . . . I dont use risky stuff at all. (Interview 6)

The bottom line for our interviewees is that journalists and others using the

Web (such as consumers of health information) must exert good judgment

about evaluating the credibility of sources and determining the motive and

bias that Web site creators have regarding the topics they have presented.

Even though the science writers expressed skepticism about Web-based

information, most respondents still used this new technology. They talked

about how they used theWebin their work (researchquestion5), often simul-

taneously discussing how they felt about using the Web in their work

(research question 6).

Every single respondent spoke of using the Web as a research tool, one

they used to seek a wide variety of information. For instance, science writers

frequently look to theWeb for background information, for keeping in touch

with colleagues, and for finding potential sources, as well as for identifying

more specialized sources.

I think thatits madeit a lot easier for me as a journalist tofind certain types ofinformation, to track peopledown, to get information from databases, to getintouchwith scientists, to find scientists who might be working on obscure stud-ies or studies that havent been publishedyet,um, to accesslibraries that arentwhere I am. (Interview 13)

Basically, I usethe Web as a way of keepingup with associates in theworkandas a way of doing my own fact checking. If I need someones full title or phonenumber I can usually find it somewhere on the Web. . . . Those are the mainuses. (Interview 14)

Some science writers have learned to use the Web to get access to new kinds

of information and, thus, for exploring new story ideas.

I usethe Webmostlyfor gettingstoryideas that I wouldnt beable togetunlessI were on the phone, all the time, all over the country. Being in [a large but



5/25/2018 283.full

16/27

remote city], trying to cover national stories, it is sometimes difficult to reallyget plugged into whats happening at MIT or Stanford or some centers wheresome reallycutting-edge science isgoingon.I usetheWeba lotto lookat otheruniversities to see [what is going on]. (Interview 12)

So, the Web is increasing story ideas and access to stories from new locales

for some journalists. Other writers have come to use the Web to find pub-

lished research articles.

I do a lot of medical writing. I was just overjoyed when the National InstitutesofHealthmadeMedline freelyavailable topeople. It used tobesomething youhad to subscribe to. . . . Well, now I can at least do the Medline searching athome,pull it all up, print out what I want or cite the articles, read the abstracts,figure out which ones I really need [and go get them]. . . . But with this next

level thats coming its going to be that much easier, cause I am going to beable to get into real full-text articles, research articles that I want to read, andtheyre going tohaveit setup so that if youre reading one, and ithasa footnotethat youre interested in, you can click on the footnote and itll take you to thatnext article. (Interview 8)

Science writers also find the Web a useful source for information about

cutting-edge research or breaking news. Here is a detailed example:

I was just finishing up a section of my book having to dowith testing forcervi-cal cancer. And a new test for humanpapilloma virus was just approved by theFDA [Food and Drug Administration], and so there was a barrage of informa-tion on the Web, and some of it was from the company that manufactures thistest.Well,were used tothat sort of thing,butI also had the advantageofseeing

comments by various physicians on this test, medical journal articles citing itand showing an evaluation of it in different circumstances, and I had, becauseof the news release [online], the name of the scientist who actually was themedical director at the company that manufactures it. And with that informa-tion I called him and interviewed him, and got quite a lot of information fromhim very fast, that I was then able toverify withotherpeople,andsoaltogether,I think it really improved thedepthandthe accuracyof myreport. (Interview 9)

The latest Web-based technology can be used for transferring information

other than pure text,and thesecapabilitiesare also beingused bysome but not

all of the science writers we talked to. One editor reported,

Were an illustrated magazine and we spend a lot of time looking at visualmaterialon theWeb, forphotosand illustration, andwe acquire most of theraw

material for illustration digitally now, sort of suck it off the Web. Not that wepublish that, but you get, you know, you find out what pictures people have ofdifferent things, and then you contact them. But almost everybodys got somekind of sample of what they have on the Web now. (Interview 10)



5/25/2018 283.full

17/27

Another writer pointed out,

I havea few sources I routinely check. And thenI end upgetting onthe phone,calling to see if they have diagrams or photos to go with it. Some of the bettersiteswillhave thoseonline.So you canmake contact withyourexpert,go tothesite, download the photo, and have a complete package to send to the editor.And Im seeing that more and moreas the editors want their writers to pro-vide thephotosas well. I think thatsbecausetheyre generally availableon theInternet.Not necessarilyin therightformat.Buttheyare available. (Interview5)

Science writers clearly use the Web to gather information as they go about

their work ina varietyof ways andfor a varietyof purposes,often,theynoted,

removing tedious aspects they experienced before this new technology was

available.Some answers our respondents gave suggested that e-mail and the Web

converge to change work for science journalists. For instance, an important

function for both e-mail and the Web is to span boundaries across time and

space for science writers. For many, this means new kinds of story ideas or

new ways of more readily working with distant sources.

I cando a quickWebsearch;a lot of times I canfind somebody whos doingup-to-date work onsubjects as diverseas hearing incricketsto . . . oh,freeze toler-ance inwoollybear caterpillars. So I canuse theWeb,and I can talkaboutlocalinsects, and introduce people to notions that they wouldnt ever be introducedto if I just relied on local resources. So, I do that every week. (Interview 15)

Together, e-mail and theWeb arechanging theways journalists work. We

posed research question 8 to identify consistent patterns between themesthat

the journalists expressed. One theme stood out. All but twoof our interview-

eespointed outthat e-mailand theWeb speed information in their work lives.

In fact, this theme was mentioned as being a prime reason for the consistent

expressions of enthusiasm about these new technologies.

I find a lot of times that people will respond to e-mail quickly, where a phonecall might take a couple of days to return. But if theyre in the office they usu-ally respond, and I can get an interview set up pretty quick. As far as using theWeb for work, lets see. . . . Well I do all the time. (Interview 15)

Or consider this:

One ofthe amazing emergentpropertiesof the Webis that when you usecertainkeywords and permutations and actually using language that I would onlyknow as a specialist . . . you can zero in on a large proportion of members of arelative, incredibly specialized community, pretty quickly. (Interview 4)



5/25/2018 283.full

18/27

Some of therespondents mentionedways theWeb ande-mail speed infor-

mation in their work with less enthusiasm, stating that the new technologies

were makingtheirworkmore competitiveandmoredemandingor increasing

work hours. Interestingly, some of the same respondents listed positive and

negative effects from quickly speeding information.

There are a lot of magazines, particularly the cutting-edge magazines, thingslike Popular Science, for example, if the information is more thana day or twoold, it doesnt go in. Even though theyre a print magazine, you have to be fastnow. (Interview 5)

Or this one:

It [the Web] also puts more stress on journalists. It used to be when you weredoing print journalism you maybe had a couple of editions to update. Now ontheInternet, youwill beupdatingconstantly. It also, I think, tends to encouragerevision, which can be a good thing, but also you can revise too much. (Inter-view 1)

Later in the interview, this same respondent stated,

It [the Web] tends to fuel my workaholic. . . . I have two computers on at themomentmylaptopthatI broughtwithmeandalsothe computerthatmy hosthas here. So, because of time, for example, Ive checked the sales ranking onmy book on Amazon this morning. . . . I wouldnt be able to do that ordinarily.So it just keeps me much more in contact with my work. (Interview 1)

Because both positive andnegative work results were linked to thespeedsinformation quality of e-mail and the Web and because this particular theme

was mentioned so often and with such emphasis by the respondents, we

looked across all the interviews to see how different ideas were linked to

speeds information. (The resulting links between themes in our interview

data are shown in Figure 1.)

On thepositive side, as the Web ande-mail speed information, journalists

are able to complete somewhat tedious tasks more easilysuch as fact

checking and playing phone tagwith sources. Thus, in these ways the speed-

ingof information can increase productivity. On thenegative side, though, as

the Web and e-mail speed information, journalists can face increased job-

related stresses.Writers must stay ahead of competitors to get thescoop,par-

ticularly on fast-breaking science news posted on the Web or via e-mail.

Thus, thequicker news cycleand quicker deadlinescan mean that work hours

expand and time management issues increase for science communicators

(see Figure 2).



5/25/2018 283.full

19/27

Interestingly, our look at patterns between the theme of speeding

information and the resulting enthusiasm (or lack thereof) shed somelight on research question 9, informing us about the diffusion of infor-

mation via e-mail and the Web. We found that the new technologies them-


The Positives:

1) Faster responses to questions and quicker fact checking leads to quicker turn

around time when writing a story.

2) Time freed from tedious tasks (fact checking or looking for details in print)

can be spent developing new stories.

3) Information coming more quickly from distant sources means possibilities are

increased for international stories or for developing new angles for local science

stories.

4) Getting information and visuals quickly can help meet and beat deadlines.

5) Breaking science news can be accessed readily via the Web and maybee-mail.

Greater Productivity

Figure 1: Speeds Information Relates to Increased Productivity


5/25/2018 283.full

20/27

selves arecreating impetus for diffusion, presumably because of thebenefits

of speeding information in terms of getting more work done and because of

thepossibilities of using theWeb as a research tool forgatheringnew anddif-

ferent kinds of information than were previously possible.


The Negatives:

1) More competition on stories means the writer needs to stay ahead to get thescoop.

2) Less time to reflect on the meaning of stories is available to draw carefullyconceived interpretations.

3) Too many choices to make about possible stories can be overwhelming.

4) Increased likelihood of incomplete, false or misleading stories or story ideas(that may be widely distributed and believed by consumers).

5) More hours on the job may be needed to keep up with breaking science news

posted via the Web or e-mail.

Increased Work Stress

Figure 2: Speeds Information Relates to Work Stress


5/25/2018 283.full

21/27

Conclusions

E-mail and the Web are having a tremendous impact on the practices of

science journalism andon the lives of science writers, accordingto ourstudy.

Our interviewees answered, to some extent, everyquestion we asked. Impor-

tantly, they told us that although thesenew technologiesspeed information in

ways that benefit their work and the dissemination of information, not all

effects arepositive. This discoveryabout how speeding information works in

different ways is, we believe, the greatest contribution of our project.

More research is needed to verify our projections about the processes

underlyingspeedinginformation withothersciencecommunicatorsandwith

other groups. Once verified, such information could supplement the existing

literature about the diffusion of e-mail and the Web, perhaps foreshadowingtrends using these new technologies.

We found some evidence, albeit limited, for Netizens, utilitarians, and

experimenters in our sample using the categories by Howard, Raine, and

Jones (2001). Our Internet users have moved well beyond the newcomer

stage to use e-mail and the Web regularly in their work.

Ourstudyalso supports thecontention by Trumbo et al. (2001) that trust is

linkedto enthusiasm, particularlywhen it comes to theWeb.Our respondents

appeared cautious but generally enthusiastic about many of the changes

brought about by e-mail and the Web. Enthusiasm was less likely when

respondents had heard about or experienced the rapid spread of misinforma-

tion or rumor.

Interviewees spokeoftenabout theneed tousethe new technological tools

with caution and urged future journalism students to learn good judgment.They also emphatically noted that traditional reporting skills could enable

students to sift through the plentiful information on the Web to glean impor-

tant, accuratedetails when writing stories forthe public. Many suggestedthat

journalism professors need to help their students develop skills on the Web

and to use e-mail effectively. Thus, our interviewees agreed with Garrison

(1995, 1997, 2000) about the growing importance of computer-assisted

reporting, especially for those students covering the fast-breaking science

beat.

E-mailand theWeb arechanging thenatureof science communication, in

significant and potentially far-reachingways.We expect these newtechnolo-

gies will transform what we learn and how we learn about science in the

futureregardless of whether we get our information in print, on television,

via the radio, or online. Indeed, practitioners and researchers have much

work to do in this area. Discovering new, more effective ways to use the Web



5/25/2018 283.full

22/27

ande-mail to sharehigh-qualityscientific informationpromises tobea major

challenge for many years to come.

APPENDIX A

Interview Guide

1. Please offer general impressions about the influence of the Web over journal-ism. Probes: Give me some specific examples or details of how the Web ande-mail influence theway you do your writing work now. That is, how have theWeb and e-mail become more important in your work over, say, the past fiveyears?

2. Tell me about how the Web affects the making of news in the area of sciencecommunication. Probes: Talk about any trends or changes in science newsmaking that are related to the Web. Talk about trends or changes in science

news making that do not seem to be related to the Web.3. Speak tomeabout yourtrust level andevaluation of informationontheWeb.

4. How has the Web changed your face-to-face or phone conversations withsources? Probes: How has that affected your relationships with sources? Howhas your thinking or feelings about your work changed because of the Web?

5. Based on your experience with using the Web and e-mail, what recommenda-tions would you make to journalism professors?

6. Is there anything youd like to add?

APPENDIX B

Brief Code Descriptions

E-mail1. Facilitates communication: The intent is to identify ways in which e-mail is

usedto aid journalists in communicating withsourcesor colleagues. Thismayappear as an explicit reference to improved or enhanced communication viae-mail.

2. E-mail interviews: The intent is to determine whether the person uses or hasused e-mail to interview sources.

3. Spans geographic boundaries and time zones: The intent is to identify ways inwhich e-mail helps transcend geographicalboundariesandtimezones, suchascommunicating with sources or colleagues in distant areas.

The Web

4. Research tool: The intent is to identify how the Web is used to perform

research. This may appear as a reference about locating sources, gatheringbackground information, or performing verification checks as well as gather-ing information used in stories.



5/25/2018 283.full

23/27

5. Skepticism:The intent is to identifythe levelof trustor skepticismfor informa-tion found on the Web.

Both Web and e-mail

6. Changes personal contact: The intent is to identify ways in which e-mail andtheWebhaveaffected, altered,diminished,or expanded personalcontact, suchas face-to-face and phone conversations with colleagues or sources.

7. Speedsinformation:The intent is to identify how theWeb helpsspeedthe pro-cess of gathering and dispensing information.

8. Increases productivity: The intent is to identify how the Web and e-mail havehelped journalists increase their productivity by completing research faster,getting answers to questions more quickly, and working more efficiently.

9. Reduces paper: The intent is to identify how e-mail and the Web may help

reduce the amount of paper a journalist must handle.10. EnthusiasmforWeb and e-mail: Theintent is todetermine thelevel ofenthusi-

asm displayed toward the Web and e-mail.

11. Work hours expand: The intent is to identify tendencies to work longer hoursand at odd hours (i.e., in the middle of the night) because of the flexibility ofaccessing the Web and e-mail at any hour of the day and night and from anylocation.

Education for journalism students

12. Good judgment:Theintent is to identifythe importance of developing discern-ment and good judgment in using the Web and e-mail in journalism. This mayappear as a reference about the necessity to adhere to the traditional values of

journalism when using the Web and e-mail.

Notes

1. The National Association of Science Writers (NASW) was incorporated in 1955 to dis-

seminate accurate information regarding science through all media normally devoted to in-

forming thepublic. TodaysNASWmembersworkas freelancers; as employeesof newspapers,

wire services, magazines, and broadcast outlets; or in government or university settings. See

http://www.nasw.org for more information.

2.We chosequotationsto include in thearticle thatreflected ideasexpressed similarlyin sev-

eral interviews. In other words, care was taken when writing not to use anomalies or exceptions

in our write-up. Where a quoted example was less frequently expressed or where it represented

an unusual example in our sample, the text introducing the theme notes this.



5/25/2018 283.full

24/27

References

Aborn, M. 1988. Telescience: Scientific communication in the information age.Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science495:10-13.

Adams,D. A.,and R. R. Nelson. 1992. Perceivedusefulness,ease of use, andusageof informa-

tion technology: A replication.MIS Quarterly16 (2): 227-48.

Althaus, S. 1997. Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experi-

ment with on-line discussions.Communication Education46 (3): 158-74.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transformingqualitative information: Thematic analysis and code devel-

opment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bunting,S., and C. Russell. 1998. Use of electronicmail for concept synthesis: An international

collaborative project.Qualitative Health Research8 (1): 128.

Cassell, M. M.,C. Jackson, andB. Cheuvront. 1998. Healthcommunication on theInternet: An

effective channel for health behavior change?Journal of Health Communication3 (1): 71-

78.Cerf, V. 2000. Cerfs up into the new millennium. Available from http://www.wcom.com/

about_the_company/cerfs_up/.

Chamberlain, M. A. 1996. Health communication: Making the most of new media technolo-

giesAn international overview.Journal of Health Communication1 (1): 43-50.

Cochran, W. 1997. Journalisms newgeography: Howelectronic tools alterthe culture andprac-

tice of newsgathering.Electronic Journal of Communication7 (2). Available from http://

www.cios.org/getfile\COCHRAN_V7N297.

Conrad,P.1999. Usesof expert sources,quotes andvoice in thereporting ofgeneticsin thenews.

Public Understanding of Science8 (4): 285-302.

Crowther, G., and G. Goldhaber. 2001. Face-to-face or e-mail: The medium makesa difference.

Communication World18 (5): 23-26.

Davenport, L., F. Fico, and D. Weinstock. 1996. Computers in newsrooms of Michigans news-

papers.Newspaper Research Journal17 (3/4): 14-29.

Dimmick, J.,S. Kline,and L. Stafford. 2000.The gratification nichesof personal e-mailand the

telephone: Competition, displacement, and complementarity.Communication Research27

(2): 227-48.

Dorman, S. 1998. Using e-mail to enhance instruction.Journal of School Health68 (6): 260.

Duke, S. 2002. Wired science: Use of World Wide Web and e-mail in science public relations.

Public Relations Review28 (3): 311-24.

Dutton, W. H.,E. M.Rogers, andS. H.Jun. 1987.Diffusionand socialimpactsof personal com-

puters.Communication Research14 (2): 219-50.

Esrock, S. L., and G. B. Leichty. 1998. Social responsibility and corporate Web pages: Self-

presentation or agenda-setting?Public Relations Review24 (3): 305-19.

Ey, C. 1995. Message is clear: E-mail use skyrocketing.Business Journal(Phoenix) 16 (5): 25-

26.

Flaherty, L. M., K. J. Pearce, and R. B. Rubin. 1998. The Internet and face-to-face communica-

tion: Not functional alternatives.Communication Quarterly46 (3): 250-68.

Garrison,B. 1995. On-lineservices as reportingtools:Daily newspaperuse of commercialdata-

bases in 1994.Newspaper Research Journal16 (4): 74-86.

. 1997. On-line services, Internet in 1995 newsrooms.Newspaper Research Journal18

(3/4): 79-93.

. 2000. Journalistsperceptionsof online information gatheringproblems.Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly77 (3): 500-14.



5/25/2018 283.full

25/27

Garton, L., and B. Wellman. 1995. Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review

of the research literature.Communication Yearbook18:434-53.

Gefen, D., and D. W. Straub. 1997. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An

extension to the technology acceptance model.MIS Quarterly21 (4): 389-401.

Graves, B. 2000. Gathering context and contacts.Nieman Reports54 (4): 63.

Grupp, R., and W. Margaritis. 2000. Face off: Who should own the Web site? Public Relations

Strategist5 (4): 30-35.

Harris, L. M., ed. 1995.Health and the new media. Technologies transforming personal and

public health. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Houston, B. 1999. Computer-assisted reporting: A practical guide. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martins.

Howard, P. E. N., L. Raine, and S. Jones.2001.Daysand nightson the Internet: The impactof a

diffusing technology.American Behavioral Scientist45 (3): 383-404.

Hunter, J., and M. Allen. 1992. Adaptation to electronic mail.Journal of Applied Communica-

tion Research20 (3): 254-74.

Johnson, M. 1997. Public relationsand technology: Practitionersperspectives.Journal of Pub-lic Relations Research9 (3): 213-36.

Kerlinger, F., and H. Lee. 2000.Foundations of behavioral research. 4th ed. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt College Publishers.

Ketterer, S. 1998. Teaching students how to evaluate and use online resources.Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly52 (4): 4-14.

Kiesler,S., J. Siegel, and T. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated

communication.American Psychologist39 (10): 1123-34.

Lievrouw, L., and K. Carley. 1990. Changing patterns of communication among scientists in an

era of telescience.Technology in Society12 (4): 457-77.

Marlow, E. 1996.Electronic public relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McMillan,S. 1999. Health communicationand theInternet:Relations between interactive char-

acteristics andthe medium andsite creators, content andpurpose.Health Communication11

(4): 375-90.

Meadows, J. 1986. The growth of science popularization: A historicalsketch.Impact of Science

on Technology36:341-46.Middleberg/Ross. 2000. The seventh annual Middleberg/Ross survey of media in the wired

world. Available from http://www.middleberg.com/.

Minsky, B. D., and D. B. Marin. 1999. Why faculty members use e-mail: The role of individual

differences in channel choice.Journal of Business Communication36 (2): 194-217.

Morse, J. M. 1994. Emerging from the data: The cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative

inquiry. InCritical issues in qualitative research methods, edited by J. M. Morse, 23-43.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nelkin, D. 1995.Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York:

Freeman.

Nielsen/NetRatings. 2002.Hot off the Net. Available from http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/.

Patton, M. Q. 1990.Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Phillips, S., andE. Eisenberg. 1993. Strategicuses ofelectronic mailin organizations.Electronic

Journal of Communication3 (2). Available from http://www.cios.org/getfile\PHILLIPS_

V3N293.

Poindexter, P. M., and M. E. McCombs. 2000.Research in mass communication. New York:Bedford/St. Martins.

Reagan, J. 1989. New technologies and news use: Adopters vs. nonadopters.Journalism Quar-

terly66:871-87.



5/25/2018 283.full

26/27

. 1991. Technology adoption: Is satisfaction the best predictor?Journalism Quarterly

68:325-32.

Rice, R. E., and D. Case. 1983. Computer-based messaging in the university: A description of

use and utility.Journal of Communication33:131-52.

Rogers, C. 2000. Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process.

Science and Engineering Ethics6:553-57.

Rogers, E. M. [1983] 1995.Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Schaefermeyer, M. J., and E. H. Sewell. 1988. Communicating by electronic mail.American

Behavioral Scientist32 (2): 112-23.

Schmitz, J., and J. Fulk. 1991. Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail.

Communication Research18 (4): 487-523.

Selnow, G. 1988. Using interactive computer to communicate scientific information.American

Behavioral Scientist32 (2): 124-35.

Singer, J. 2001. The metro wide web: Change in newspapersgatekeeping role online.Journal-

ism and Mass Communication Quarterly78 (1): 65-80.

Splichal,S. 1993. HowFloridanewspapersare dealing withaccess tocomputerized governmentinformation.Newspaper Research Journal13/14 (4/1): 73-83.

Sproull, L., and S. Kiesler. 1991. Computers, networks, and work.Scientific American265 (3):

116-23.

Steinfield,C. 1983. Communicatingvia electronic mail:Patterns andpredictors ofuse inorgani-

zations. Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

. 1986a. Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: Explaining

task-related and socioemotional uses. InCommunication yearbook, vol. 9, edited by M. L.

McLaughlin, 777-804. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

. 1986b. Computer-mediated communication systems. InAnnual review of information

science and technology, vol. 21, edited by M. E. Williams, 167-202. White Plains, NY:

Knowledge Industry.

Stempel, G., and R. Stewart. 2000. The Internet provides both opportunities and challenges for

mass communication researchers.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77 (3):

541-48.

Sundar, S.,S. Narayan, R. Obregon, andC. Uppal.1998.Does Web advertising work? Memoryfor print vs. online media.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly75 (4): 822-35.

Sundar,S., and C. Nass.2001. Conceptualizing sources in online news.Journal of Communica-

tion51 (1): 52-72.

Thomsen, S. 1995. Using online databases in corporate issues management.Public Relations

Review21 (2): 103-22.

Trumbo, C., K. Sprecker, R. Dumlao, G. Yun, and S. Duke. 2001. Use of e-mail and the Web by

science writers.Science Communication22 (4): 347-78.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion. Avail-

able from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/index.html.

Walsh, J. P., S. Kucker, N. G. Maloney, and S. Gabbay. 2000. Connecting minds: Computer-

mediated communicationand scientific work.Journal of the American Society for Informa-

tion Science51 (14): 1295-1305.

Weise,E. 1997. Doesthe Internetchange newsreporting?Media Studies Journal11(2):159-63.

Wendland,M. 1996. Using theInternet:A crucial skill forjournalists.RTNDACommunicator50

(9): 38-44.



5/25/2018 283.full

27/27

REBECCA DUMLAO received her Ph.D. from the University of WisconsinMadison

and currently servesas an assistantprofessor in the Department of Communication and

Broadcastingat East CarolinaUniversity. She worked as a freelancewriter beforestudy-

ing scientific and technical communication at Oregon State University. She taught jour-

nalism to science majors at Wisconsin and to journalism and public relations majors at

East Carolina.Her research looks at how individuals make sense of information fromthe

Internet or television, especially when interpersonalandmass communicationconverge.

SHEARLEAN DUKE received her masters degree from Chapman University and cur-

rently serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Journalism at Western

Washington University. Duke previously worked for twenty years as a practicing jour-

nalist and public relations specialist. She is a former editor and reporter for the Los

AngelesTimes andhas taught journalism and/or public relations at Western Washing-

ton, East Carolina University, andthe University of CaliforniaIrvine.Her researchin-

terests include the uses of the Internet and e-mail in communicating science and health

information.



283.full

Documents

Transcript of 283.full