JCOMC ONNECTING S CIENCE C OMMUNICATION R ESEARCH
AND P RACTICE :C HALLENGES AND WAYS F ORWARD

Bridging research and practice: insights fromcollaborative science communication research on
Japanese television

Taichi Masu and Yasuhito Abe
Abstract

This collaborative essay details the reflections of a science communication
practitioner and a media communication scholar on their joint research intoscience communication through Japanese commercial terrestrial
television. It emphasizes their unique perspectives as an insider andoutsider in their respective fields, suggesting a method to strengthen thecollaboration between academic research and its practical application inscience communication.

Keywords

Public understanding of science and technology; Representations ofscience and technology; Science and media

DOI

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403
Submitted: 31st August 2023
Accepted: 16th January 2024
Published: 25th March 2024

This essay arose from many conversations about joint research on science
communication through Japanese commercial terrestrial television, taking place
between Taichi Masu, who is a science communication practitioner cum scholar,
and Yasuhito Abe, a scholar in media and communication studies in Japan. The
former has spent 17 years as a media practitioner at a Japanese commercial
terrestrial television agency, actively involved in science communication practice.
Even after transitioning from the television agency to academia in 2022, hecontinues to convey an array of scientific information to a wide audience, all while
maintaining his dual role as a science communication practitioner and researcher.
On the other hand, the latter has devoted years to the study of citizen science as
science communication by citizens, a model where citizens are at the forefront ofscience communication [e.g. Abe, 2014, 2020, 2022, 2023a, 2023b]. As a social
scientist, he has examined how a variety of citizens were engaged in measuring
environmental radiation after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of 2011,
illuminating how they used various media, including digital media in particular, todisseminate the scientific information and knowledge they acquired to a larger
audience within the contemporary Japanese media landscape [e.g. Abe, 2015, 2019].
In this essay, we will explore the following question: What insights have we gained
from one another during our collaborative research? To do so, we begin by
Essay

Journal of Science Communication 23(02)(2024)Y03 1

outlining our joint research on science communication via Japanese commercial
terrestrial television. We then touch upon its relevance in both social and academic
contexts. Following this, we reflect on our method in studying science
communication, emphasizing how it seeks to connect research with practicalapplication in this field. While our joint research is still in progress and its
outcomes are not the focus of this essay, a detailed examination of the mutual
learning between a science communication practitioner and a media
communication researcher within this collaborative effort has the potential toenhance the field of science communication.

Overview of ourcollaborative
research

In our joint research, we investigate how a Japanese terrestrial commercial
broadcasting agency manufactured television programs relating to a scientific term.
In doing so, we focus on exploring the interaction between experts and media
professionals. This section will provide a more detailed description of our joint
research project. However, before delving into the specifics, we feel it is necessary
to introduce ourselves more thoroughly, highlighting our individual experiences
and areas of expertise that have influenced our viewpoints on this subject.
Taichi Masu, a science communication practitioner cum scholar, earned a Master’s
degree in Agriculture, subsequently co-publishing his master’s thesis with hisacademic colleagues [Masu et al., 2008]. After receiving the degree, he started his
professional career at the Nippon Television Network Corporation (hereinafterreferred to as NTV) in 2006, a key broadcasting agency in Tokyo’s commercial
broadcast television networks and the oldest private television station in Japan,
known for its educational and entertaining programs about science, such as “The
Most Useful School in the World” [e.g. Masuda, 2007]. At NTV, his contributions to
the realm of science communication extend beyond his sixteen years of active
participation in the production of a range of science-related programs at the
television agency; Masu also played an integral role in delivering scientificinformation to audiences in his capacity as a broadcaster [e.g. Chishiki no Hōko Me
ga Ten Raiburarı̄, 2015]. Since his departure from the broadcasting agency in 2022,
he has assumed the role of a researcher in science communication while
concurrently maintaining his role as a weekly news program anchor [Masu, 2022;
Nittere, 2024]. In this capacity, he consistently delivers information pertaining toscience, such as the topic of blue carbon, to his audiences [e.g. Nittere News, 2023].
On the other hand, Yasuhito Abe, a media and communication scholar, lacks adirect background in the natural sciences. Instead, his academic path in the field ofcommunication led him to focus on media communication, utilizing qualitative
research methods such as ethnography, content analysis, and discourse analysis[e.g. Abe, 2013, 2015, 2019, 2023b]. While Abe does not have first-hand experiencein the practice of science communication within a mass media environment, he has
been examining how scientific information is produced and represented acrossdifferent media platforms, including both mass media and digital media [e.g. Abe,2015]. In the field of media and communication studies, he has been particularlyinterested in exploring the role of media in science communication by citizens andfor citizens.
Given our diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise, we paid attention to NTV’s
novel media campaign. Commencing in March of 2023, NTV has beenhttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 2

orchestrating a media initiative titled the “Japan Archipelago Blue Carbon Project.”In this campaign, NTV has been broadcasting programs related to blue carbon, thecarbon stored by marine ecosystems. The official purpose of this project is “topromote activities related to the conservation of the marine environment” [Nippon
Television Inc., 2024], but it also includes a media campaign encompassing science
communication to popularize “blue carbon,” a scientific term currently not widely
recognized in Japanese society as of 2023. In this regard, this media campaign liesat the intersection between environmental communication and science
communication. As Davis, Fähnrich, Nepote, Riedlinger and Trench [2018]
elucidate, environmental communication and science communication sharecommon ground but differ in their primary objective. Environmental
communication leans toward raising awareness about environmental concerns
rather than the scientific understanding itself, whereas science communication has
been less attentive to the matters of awareness-raising or behavior change. In lightof Davis et al. [2018]’s observations, our research project has chosen to periodize
the elements of science communication because this approach aligns with ourshared interest in the field of science communication. Ultimately, we frame NTV’s
Japan Archipelago Blue Carbon Project as a media-led science communication
campaign and focus on exploring how programs relating to blue carbon weredeveloped through interactions between experts and media professionals.
In this section, we provide a succinct summary of our collaborative research thatexamines the communication between scientists and media professionals involvedin the Japan Archipelago Blue Carbon Project at NTV. Before delving into our
research method, the upcoming section provides a backdrop for our joint
investigation, emphasizing its importance in both academic and societal contexts.

Why our joint
research matters

This section provides a brief explanation of the academic and social significance of
our joint research on science communication campaign by NTV. While numerous
scholars increasingly highlighted the rise of science communication through digitalplatforms, including but not limited to YouTube [e.g. Brossard, 2013; Velho &Barata, 2020], it is imperative to pay attention to the continued salience of mass
media in science communication [e.g. Blöbaum, Scheu, Summ & Volpers, 2012;
Bucchi, 1998; Dahlstrom, 2014; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Peters, 2013]. This concern
gains particular resonance in the context of Japan [e.g. Hayaoka & Fujikawa, 2010].
Recent empirical evidence indicates that while Japan demonstrates a broader
spectrum of interest in science and technology relative to the member nations of
the European Union (EU), the level of understanding of science and technology inJapan is somewhat lower than in the EU member states [Hosotsubo, Kano &Okamura, 2017]. Consequently, there emerges a compelling need to reflect criticallyon the channels used to distribute different types of scientific information tovarious audiences. Hayakawa [2015] pointed out that although the Internet isbecoming a more prominent source for science and technology information,
television still remains the key source of scientific information for people in Japan,
even for those with scant knowledge or interest in these fields.
To date, numerous communication studies scholars investigated the role of
television in scientific information [e.g. Dudo et al., 2011; Gerbner, 1987; LaFollette,
1982; Russell, 2009]. In a seminal piece on science communication on television, forexample, Gerbner [1987] characterized the function of television as follows:

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 3

Unlike other media, television is used relatively nonselectively. . . It provides
an abundance of information, mostly through entertainment, to all viewers,
including those who seek no information. Television reaches the previously
unreachable quickly and continuously. To attract and sell to the largest
audience at the least cost to the advertiser (the source of broadcaster income),
television must cultivate the most common interests, hopes, and fears of thelargest groups of viewers. These imperatives define television’s role in society,guide its functions, and shape its contributions to public conceptions ofscience. [1987, p. 111]

Nearly 40 years ago, Gerbner [1987] thus insightfully pinpointed the uniquecharacteristic of commercial television within the sphere of science communication:
its capability to disseminate scientific information, reaching even those notproactively in pursuit of such knowledge. In doing so, he highlighted theimperative for scientists to recognize television’s potential for reaching diverse andvast audiences and the necessity of fostering robust relationships with television
professionals. Despite Gerbner [1987]’s assertion emphasizing the necessity ofcultivating relationships and enhancing mutual comprehension between scientists
and media professionals, it remains a challenge to confirm that such ties have beenadequately fortified in Japan.
We posit that one crucial factor in fostering mutual understanding is the necessity
for both parties to gain knowledge of each other’s respective professional cultures,
just as Peters [1995] aptly pointed out. Put differently, it is incumbent upon
scientists and television workers to strive for a deeper understanding of one
another. This implies that scientists need to understand the logic that television
workers apply, just as media workers need to comprehend scientists’ reasoning.
However, there has been a lack of research on the production sites of commercial
television agencies in the field of media and communication studies in Japan [e.g.
Matsui, 2020], despite that much research has investigated the production sites of
television outside the country [e.g. J. H. Caldwell, 2008; J. T. Caldwell, 1995; Gans,
2004; O’Brien, 2015]. In the field of science communication as well, little has been
known about the mechanism by which television professionals craft science-related
news and content in commercial television programs in Japan. For example,
Muramatsu and Inoue [2005] draw upon their experience in producing science
programs for NHK (Japan’s public broadcaster) and discuss the intricacies ofpresenting scientific information through television. However, they seemingly
bypass a comprehensive analysis of pressing issues endemic to commercial
television entities, most notably, the viewership ratings. As Gerbner [1987]
suggested, for Japanese commercial broadcasters to increase their viewership, theyneed to develop programs that appeal to a large audience, including those who
may not have a strong interest in science. Nevertheless, no empirical research has
been conducted on the communication between media workers and scientists (orexperts) in the production of such programs in Japan.
In order to fill this gap in the research, we focus on the NTV’s media campaign
simply because we are afforded access to the production processes behindscience-related television programming, a privilege facilitated through theextensive network cultivated by Masu. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that NTV,
operating within the sphere of commercial broadcasting, faces the imperative of
viewership ratings, which inevitably shapes its approach to producing scientifichttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 4

content. Apparently, this contrasts sharply with the production dynamics of publicbroadcasting entities such as NHK. Consequently, by centering our attention on
NTV, a non-public broadcasting entity, we are able to shed light on the tactics
employed by media professionals to craft science-centric content, even when
operating under the confines of viewership metrics.

Reflecting on thedual
insider/outsider
methodIn this section, we outline our approach to studying science communication
through NTV. We adopted team ethnography for practical reasons [e.g. Creese &Blackledge, 2012; Erickson & Stull, 1998; O’Reilly, 2009]. Notably, certain
qualitative researchers have posited that conducting ethnographic studies within
one’s own professional environment could introduce bias, as exemplified by
Creswell & Báez’s [2021] assertion that such research sites might foster“predetermined expectations of what you will find” [2021, p. 21]. While suchconcerns can be legitimate, they appear to have been mitigated by the involvementof Abe, who is a media and communication scholar. As a complete outsider to NTV
and devoid of experience in the specialized field of science communication within
the context of television broadcasting, Abe brought a unique perspective to the
ethnographic research design, even influencing the preliminary stages of interview
question formulation. Ultimately, our team is more or less egalitarian simply
because we acknowledge the multitude of insights that none of us could haveuncovered individually.
Over time, what emerged was a realization that this very lack of familiarity with
the intricacies of Japanese television station culture constituted a form of“expertise” within the ambit of this collaborative inquiry. It was a manifestation of
the old adage that sometimes ignorance can indeed be a form of strength. It mustbe acknowledged, of course, that the feasibility of this approach was greatly
facilitated by Masu’s unqualified acceptance of Abe’s ostensibly naive inquiries,
which in turn enriched the depth and texture of the research. However, the maxim“ignorance is power” does not hold water when it comes to the conduct of expert
interviews — without a rudimentary grasp of scientific principles, the specialized
language employed by experts can become inaccessible. Abe, having only
managed to glean a superficial understanding of the concept of “blue carbon”
through layperson-oriented texts [e.g. Hori & Kuwae, 2017], bound himself entirely
reliant on Masu, who is a science communication practitioner cum scholar, when
the discourse ventured into more complex territories. In contrast, with his deep
understanding of key scientific concepts, Masu found it easier to comprehendcomplex topics. As an adept practitioner in science communication, Masu skillfully
simplified and explained intricate scientific mechanisms in a manner that wasaccessible, which greatly assisted Abe. This expertise was especially valuable
during scientist interviews, where Masu’s knowledge led to a more fluid andproductive data-gathering process.
Through these experiences, we came to understand that our research approachreflects the distinctive viewpoints of two individuals who simultaneously
act as insiders and outsiders in their individual areas of expertise. This approach,which we term the dual insider/outsider method, is applied to the study of science
communication. We believe that this method has the potential to effectively connect
the domains of science communication research and its practical application.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 5

Integrating the insider’s perspective is undoubtedly a strong point in our collaborative research. For example, Masu’s background in science communication practice
initially did not encompass a research design that would capture the intricacies of
television production. But, Abe’s insight, coming from an insider’s perspective inthe field research, played a crucial role in refining the research design. On the other
hand, the qualitative research background of Abe is grounded in the belief that
researchers should invest significant time in establishing trust with participants
to gather data effectively. In contrast, Masu’s insights, derived from their insideexperience in TV program production, have accelerated our research process.
In commercial television production, it’s crucial to interview everyone involved
as soon as possible post-broadcast, as they usually move on to different projects.
This insider perspective was essential in making our data collection successful.
Perhaps more notably, our collaborative research gained significantly from eachco-author being an ‘outsider’ in the other’s field, bringing fresh perspectives andinsights. For instance, when interviewing TV workers, Abe asked a basic yet
insightful question: “Why do you always need to come up with something new?”
The absence of an immediate answer from the interviewees, as well as Masu’s
similar reaction, highlighted the importance of this outsider viewpoint. It helped
uncover elements that might typically be missed by those deeply embedded in thefield. Likewise, Masu’s approach to selecting research subjects was influenced byhis background as an outsider of media and communication research. He
suggested focusing on television programs with high viewership ratings andconsidering the demographic details of their audiences. This approach was basedon their potential for broad social influence and reach. This strategy wasparticularly innovative to Abe, a media and communication researcher accustomed
to qualitative methods where the primary focus often begins with program content.
Masu’s suggestion to target popular programs during prime viewing times, like
Saturday nights in Japan, introduced a fresh perspective to the study, exemplifying
how combining insider knowledge from different fields can enrich research design.
While Scheufele [2022] observes that science communication researchers have notnecessarily produced the insights needed by practitioners, and that science
communication practitioners have not necessarily paid sufficient attention toresearch findings, our joint research project could bridge this divide, potentially
serving as a valuable resource for both researchers and practitioners in science
communication. For instance, Masu’s experience with science communication at
NTV has guided us in identifying what aspects of our research are genuinely
beneficial for practitioners, a perspective that would have been absent without
Masu’s involvement. Additionally, with the involvement of Abe, we have beenable to document and describe the daily communication practices of science
communication practitioners. This documentation process effectively transforms
the practitioners’ individual tacit knowledge, acquired through experience, into acollective resource for science communication research. Just as Jensen and Gerber[2020] emphasized, our collaborative research on science communication in
Japanese commercial television must offer “relevant, accurate, and timely insightsthat practitioners can use” [2020, p. 4] in Japan. To fulfill this objective, we believethat our collaborative effort effectively bridges the gap between the practice andresearch of science communication.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 6

Through such experiences, we gain deeper self-awareness. For example, Masu,
who has conducted interviews with a wide range of people, including scientists, inthe field of mass media, found that the interviews in qualitative research methods
represented a stark departure from his prior experiences. The objective of theinterviews he had conducted thus far was to elicit statements from the intervieweesthat would resonate with viewers on the television screen, a goal quite different
from that of interviews in qualitative research. Consequently, Masu was confronted
with the task of “unlearning” the interview skills he had honed through his priorexperiences. On the other hand, Abe gradually came to understand why somesocial scientists, lacking formal training in the natural sciences, readily accept theinsights of scientists and citizen science practitioners without critical evaluation.
Working with Masu, Abe “unlearned” his approach to studying citizen science
communication through qualitative research, becoming convinced of the need forscholars in this field to engage more deeply with scientific studies.
Lévy [1997] once posited the notion of collective intelligence, stating that “no one
knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides inhumanity” [1997, p. 20]. This idea could potentially furnish meaningful insights forour investigation into the interplay of science communication and mass media. In
essence, it becomes increasingly evident that interdisciplinary collaboration is not
merely desirable but essential for a nuanced understanding of the complexities
inherent in science communication through mass media. Although suchcollaboration can take many forms, this essay suggests that alliances between
science communication practitioners and media communication scholars stand as aparticularly effective model for productive intellectual engagement.

Conclusion

Our co-authored essay marks a part of the inception of our extended collaborative
research project, whose rationale was described in some detail in this essay. Thereis the intellectual benefit of collaboration between a science communication
practitioner and a researcher as a multi-disciplinary team. This collaboration
thrives on an understanding that transcends individual strengths and weaknesses
and appreciates the collective strength of the team, drawn from the diverse
experiences and specialized knowledge of its members.
This essay underscores the necessity to acknowledge the value of science
communication practitioners, a value derived not only from their extensive
professional experience but also from their continuing, dynamic engagement with
television broadcasting. Continuing as a practitioner of science communication on
television not only facilitates access to research subjects such as media workers at
TV stations and program production sites, but also ensures ongoing familiarity
with the rapidly changing culture of television agencies. Of course, as Creswell andBáez [2021] pointed out, this may sometimes be a hindrance in conducting
qualitative research. However, it seems that such issues can be somewhat
alleviated by conducting team ethnography with an outsider.
Working alongside media professionals or those intimately familiar with the“logic” of commercial television affords a wealth of learning prospects for scholars
in the field of science and media communication. Similarly, science communication
practitioners stand to gain substantially from the insights offered by experts
immersed in the academic framework of media communication. Consequently, it ishttps://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 7

our ardent aspiration that this form of interdisciplinary collaborative research will
not remain confined to Japan but will garner recognition and find footing on a
global scale.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Harris Research Project provided by theHarris Research Institute of Doshisha University and the SDGs Research Projectprovided by the All Doshisha Research Model.

References

Abe, Y. (2013). Risk assessment of nuclear power by Japanese newspapers
following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. International Journal ofCommunication 7, 1968–1989. Retrieved fromhttp://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1848/982
Abe, Y. (2014). Safecast or the production of collective intelligence on radiation
risks after 3.11. Japan Focus 12 (7), 4077. Retrieved fromhttp://www.japanfocus.org/-Yasuhito-_Abe_/4077
Abe, Y. (2015). Measuring for what: networked citizen science movements after the
Fukushima nuclear disaster (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.). Retrieved fromhttps://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/measuring-whatnetworked-citizen-science/docview/2158339885/se-2
Abe, Y. (2019). Making civic media in the post-Fukushima Japanese media ecology.
In J. Hunsinger & A. Schrock (Eds.), Making our world: the hacker and makermovements in context (pp. 37–53). New York, NY, U.S.A.: Peter Lang.
Abe, Y. (2020). Citizen before science: R-DAN and its monitorial ethic after
Chernobyl. In M. Fathisalout-Bollon & A. Berti-Suman (Eds.), Legal, social andethical perspectives on health & technology (pp. 65–90). Chambéry, France: Savoie
Mont Blanc University Press.
Abe, Y. (2022). Exploring radiation measurement after Fukushima: when media
ecology meets citizen science. Mètode Revista de difusió de la investigació 12,
41–45. doi:10.7203/metode.12.17642
Abe, Y. (2023a). Remembering and forgetting Fukushima: where citizen science
meets populism after Fukushima. International Journal of Communication 17,
2224–2242. Retrieved fromhttps://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19065/4107
Abe, Y. (2023b). Temporal citizen science after Fukushima. International Journal ofCommunication 17, 1573–1591. Retrieved fromhttps://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18484/4068
Blöbaum, B., Scheu, A. M., Summ, A. & Volpers, A.-M. (2012). Forschungspolitik ineiner medialisierten Konstellation von Politik, Wissenschaft und Medien[Science policy in mediatized constellations of politics, science, and media].
Studies in Communication/Media 1 (1), 149–165.
doi:10.5771/2192-4007-2012-1-149
Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (S3), 14096–14101.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110
Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: alternative routes to scientific communications.
New York, NY, U.S.A.: Routledge.
Caldwell, J. H. (2008). Production culture: industrial reflexivity and critical practice infilm and television. Durham, NC, U.S.A.: Duke University Press.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 8

Caldwell, J. T. (1995). Televisuality: style, crisis and authority in American television.
New Brunswick, NJ, U.S.A.: Rutgers University Press.
Chishiki no Hōko Me ga Ten Raiburarı̄ (2015). Ikimono (moyo) no kagaku [Thescience of animal (patterns)]. Chishiki no Hōko Me ga Ten Raiburarı̄. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.ntv.co.jp/megaten/archive/library/date/15/05/0503.html
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2012). Voice and meaning-making in teamethnography. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 43 (3), 306–324.
doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01182.x
Creswell, J. W. & Báez, J. C. (2021). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Los
Angeles, CA, U.S.A.: Sage Publications.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science
with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(S4), 13614–13620. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Davis, L., Fähnrich, B., Nepote, A. C., Riedlinger, M. & Trench, B. (2018).
Environmental communication and science communication — conversations,connections and collaborations. Environmental Communication 12 (4), 431–437.
doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1436082
Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N.
(2011). Science on television in the 21st century: recent trends in portrayals
and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication
Research 38 (6), 754–777. doi:10.1177/0093650210384988
Erickson, K. & Stull, D. (1998). Doing team ethnography: warnings and advice. Los
Angeles, CA, U.S.A.: Sage.
Gans, H. J. (2004). Deciding what’s news: a study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly
news, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL, U.S.A.: Northwestern University
Press.
Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: how it affects public conceptions. Issues inScience and Technology 3 (3), 109–115. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43309074
Hayakawa, Y. (2015). Kagaku gijutsu ni kansuru jōhō no shuyō shutoku gen to ishiki
nado tono kanren [The relationship between primary sources for information
about science and technology and its awareness]. Discussion paper 121.
Japan: National Institute of Science, Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Retrieved fromhttps://www.nistep.go.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/NISTEP-DP121FullJ1.pdf
Hayaoka, E. & Fujikawa, H. (2010). Kagaku bangumi o meguru seisakusha toshimin no taiwa: CoSTEP seminā “kagaku jānarizumu wa shakai o kae uru
ka” kara [Communication between the producer and the citizens over science
programs in tv: a report from costep seminar “can the science journalismchange society?”]. Kagaku Gijutsu Komyunikēshon 8, 99–112. Retrieved fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/2115/44530
Hori, M. & Kuwae, T. (Eds.) (2017). Burū kābon: senkai ni okeru CO2 kakuri choryū tosono katsuyō [Blue carbon: CO2 uptake and carbon storage in shallow coastal
ecosystems and their utilization]. Tokyo, Japan: Chijin Shokan.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 9

Hosotsubo, M., Kano, K. & Okamura, A. (2017). Kagaku gijutsu ni kansuru kokumin
ishiki chōsa: kokusai kokunai hikaku shihyō ni kansuru kentō [An exploratory
study on constructing indicators for international and time-series
comparison]. NISTEP research material no. 256. Japan: National Institute of
Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from https://www.nistep.go.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/NISTEP-RM256-FullJ.pdf
Jensen, E. A. & Gerber, A. (2020). Evidence-based science communication. Frontiersin Communication 4 (78), 1–5. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078
LaFollette, M. C. (1982). Science on television: influences and strategies. Daedalus
111 (4), 183–197. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024824
Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace.
Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.: Perseus Books.
Masu, T. (2022). Masu Taichi ga kiku: kagaku no tsutae kata [Tachi masu asks: how tocommunicate science]. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Kagaku Dōjin.
Masu, T., Watanabe, S., Aoki, S., Katayama, S., Fukuda, M. & Hino, A. (2008).
Establishment of shell growth analysis technique of juvenile Manila clam
Ruditapes philippinarum: semidiurnal shell increment formation. Fisheries
Science 74 (1), 41–47. doi:10.1111/j.1444-2906.2007.01493.x
Masuda, T. (2007). Keizai/sangyō: “rika banare” kaishō no tameni nani ga hitsuyō
ka: “Sekai ichi uketai jugyō” dake de wa monozukuri no kiki wa sukuenai[Economics and industry: what is needed to overcome “scienceaversion”? — “The Most Useful School in the World” alone cannot save thecrisis in manufacturing]. Keiei Sensā: Sangyō to Keiei no Jōhōshi 94, 12–25.
Retrieved from https://cs2.toray.co.jp/news/tbr/newsrrs01.nsf/0/
F273220E28B150D349258389002A105B/$FILE/sen_a049.pdf
Matsui, E. (2020). Shin terebi gaku kōgi: motto omoshiroku suru tame no riron to jissen[New television studies: theory and practice for making tv more interesting].
Tokyo, Japan: Kawade Shobō Shinsha.
Muramatsu, S. & Inoue, T. (2005). Terebi to kagaku komyunikēshon: kagaku
bangumi seisaku no gemba kara [Television and science communication:from the field of science program production]. Iden: Seibutsu no kagaku 59,
57–63.
Nippon Television Inc. (2024). Umi no mori o mamorou! Nihon rettō burū kābon
purojekuto [Save the forest of the sea! Japan archipelago blue carbon project].
Retrieved from https://www.ntv.co.jp/bluecarbon/
Nisbet, M. C. & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication?
Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10), 1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
Nittere (2024). Kyasutā shōkai: Shinsō hōdō Bankisha! [Meet the newscasters of
Bankisha]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ntv.co.jp/bankisha/static/caster.html
Nittere News (2023, May 29). “Umino mori fukkatsu” e: 30 bai ni sodatta “umi nomori” ga kyūgen saisei o akiramenai kōkōsei tachi no chōsen [Reviving the“forest of the sea”: the quest of high school students to reclaim the drasticallydepleted “forest of the sea,” which had once flourished thirtyfold]. YouTube
video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSEeCwCBiNE
O’Brien, A. (2015). Producing television and reproducing gender. Television & New
Media 16 (3), 259–274. doi:10.1177/1527476414557952
O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.: Sage.

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 10

Peters, H. P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific experts:
co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture &Society 17 (1), 31–48. doi:10.1177/016344395017001003
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public
communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (S3),14102–14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110
Russell, N. (2009). Communicating science: professional, popular, literary. New York,NY, U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.
Scheufele, D. A. (2022). Thirty years of science–society interfaces: what’s next?
Public Understanding of Science 31 (3), 297–304.
doi:10.1177/09636625221075947
Velho, R. M. & Barata, G. (2020). Profiles, challenges, and motivations of science
YouTubers. Frontiers in Communication 5, 542936.
doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.542936

Authors

Taichi Masu is a science communication practitioner cum scholar, currently serving
as an Assistant Professor at Doshisha University’s Harris Science Research Institutein Japan. Holding an M.S. in Agriculture, he has 17 years of media expertise fromhis work with Nippon Television Network Corporation, where he has specialized
in televised science communication. His publications included Tachi Masu asks: how
to communicate science.

# tmasu@mail.doshisha.ac.jp

Yasuhito Abe is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Media,
Journalism and Communications, part of the Faculty of Social Studies at Doshisha
University in Japan. Specializing in media and citizen science communication, he
has contributed to prestigious journals, including International Journal ofCommunication, International Journal of Cultural Studies, Communication & Sport, andCitizen Science: Theory and Practice, among others.

# yabe@mail.doshisha.ac.jp
How to cite

Masu, T. and Abe, Y. (2024). ‘Bridging research and practice: insights fromcollaborative science communication research on Japanese television’.
JCOM 23 (02), Y03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403.

c The Author(s). This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons⃝
Attribution — NonCommercial — NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.
ISSN 1824-2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. jcom.sissa.it
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23020403

JCOM 23(02)(2024)Y03 11