[Commlist] call for papers from CS journal about “Mediating Science: Mediation and Mediators of Scientific Knowledge in Complex Society”

Tosoni Simone is glad to share the attached call for papers from CS 
journal about “Mediating Science: Mediation and Mediators of Scientific 
Knowledge in Complex Society”. The December 2026 special issue will 
address the role of science communicators from a relational perspective 
aimed at challenging the science communication studies to move beyond 
the analysis of content transmitted by communicators or received by 
audiences, and to address the broader question of how mediators help 
shape the relationships among the spheres of knowledge production, 
politics, the economy, and citizenship. See below for details

CALL FOR PAPERS: Mediating Science: Mediation and Mediators of 
Scientific Knowledge in Complex Society (Special Issue of Comunicazioni 
Sociali)

Edited by Piermarco Aroldi, Paolo Volontè

Until a few years ago still considered an emerging field (Trench & 
Bucchi, 2010), the study of science communication now enjoys sustained 
and growing attention, both publicly and academically. Underlying this 
interest and rapid development is the awareness that, in today’s 
knowledge society (Cerroni, 2006), science communication is essential to 
“educate scientifically literate citizens, capable of adopting 
epistemically responsible behaviors” (Tombolato, 2023) and of fully 
exercising their rights and duties of citizenship (Callon, Lascoumes & 
Barthe, 2001). On the one hand, taking a political stance on key issues 
of public interest — such as climate change, the energy transition, or 
the implementation of communication infrastructures like the 5G network 
— requires at least a basic understanding of the scientific and 
technological foundations of the phenomena at stake. On the other hand, 
an equally important competence is needed to foster the dialogue between 
citizens and scientists, which is indispensable for genuine democratic 
participation in the scientific enterprise (Rüfenacht et al., 2021).

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has made the centrality of this field of 
study even more evident. In public debate, the emergence of social and 
political resistance to public health measures grounded in scientific 
knowledge dramatically revealed the urgency of reflecting on the 
relationship between science, politics, communication, and the public 
(Gomarasca, Graffigna, Savarese & Tosoni, 2021). The pandemic, in fact, 
made visible — and socially and politically significant — the mediating 
work carried out by science journalists, communicators, digital 
platforms, and research institutions, showing that science communication 
is not a mere transmission of information and knowledge, but rather a 
social arena for the negotiation of meanings and collective decisions. 
This awareness is now at the core of an ongoing revision of the 
theoretical and methodological frameworks of the field. Although its 
limitations have long been acknowledged (Bucchi, 2008), several authors 
have pointed out that the persistence of the so-called “deficit model” — 
which views the public as essentially passive and characterized by a 
knowledge gap that science communication is meant to fill — still goes 
hand in hand with impoverished transmissive-diffusionist models of 
communication (Suldovsky, 2016). These models focus on communication as 
a mere transfer of knowledge between the distinct contexts of science 
and the public, in a linear process in which only “the former influences 
the latter” (Bucchi, 2008: 58), and in which knowledge itself is 
(ideally) left unchanged. The continuous transformation of meanings, the 
joint participation of different actors in the co-construction of these 
meanings, the multidirectionality of communication flows, their ability 
to crossspatial, temporal, and media boundaries uninterruptedly, and the 
active, participatory role of all actors involved — all aspects 
overlooked by the transmissive model of communication — lie at the very 
heart of the conceptualization of communication as mediation proposed, 
within media studies, by Roger Silverstone (1999). Returning to his 
framework is useful for theoretically supporting the new perspectives in 
the study of science communication.

Conceiving the communication process as mediation means emphasizing its 
social, cultural, and relational dimensions (Davies & Horst, 2016). This 
underscores that the process can not be read as a mere transfert of 
knowledge and meanings but must be addressed as a process of knowledge 
and meanings co-construction, negotiation, legitimation, and 
transformation. From this perspective, “mediating science” does not 
simply mean translating scientific language and knowledge into forms 
that are comprehensible and culturally relevant to different audiences 
but also bringing expert and “lay” knowledge into dialogue within a 
field shaped by diverse political, economic, and social interests. 
Secondly, conceiving science communication as mediation makes it clear 
that it is not a linear process flowing from the scientific community to 
the public. Rather, it opens a space of negotiation that, in today’s 
complex society (Luhmann, 1990), simultaneously involves the world of 
knowledge production, citizens and organized forms of civil society, 
political and governmental institutions, and the industrial and 
technological spheres. It is the interaction among these poles that 
shapes the problems and priorities addressed by science communication, 
and it is within this space of negotiation that knowledge, trust 
relationships, and forms of authority emerge. Finally, Silverstone 
himself emphasizes that the mediation process involves not only 
individuals (citizens, audiences, experts, scientists, and 
communicators) and institutions, but also technologies. As underlined by 
the current debate on “deep mediatization” (Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Hepp, 
2019), communication technologies help shape the social processes they 
provide with an infrastructure, and the sphere of mediation between the 
scientific community, citizens, institutions, and the 
industrial/technological world is no exception. In this sense, the 
technical infrastructure of mediation itself must be understood as a 
genuine actor in the mediation of scientific knowledge.

This relational perspective challenges the science communication studies 
to move beyond the analysis of content transmitted by communicators or 
received by audiences, and to address the broader question of how 
mediators — whether institutional or informal, human or technological — 
help shape the relationships among the spheres of knowledge production, 
politics, the economy, and citizenship. This entails, first and 
foremost, a shift in focus that places the mediators themselves at the 
center of analysis — understood both as social actors who formally or 
informally assume this role (such as journalists and communicators, 
educators, consultants, experts, institutions, and companies, and 
increasingly scientists themselves) and as technical systems of 
mediation (whether communication platforms or institutionalized 
protocols and procedures, such as those involved in data-driven policy 
making). Secondly, it requires examining the role of each mediator not 
in isolation, but from an ecosystemic and situated perspective: that is, 
a perspective that accounts for how each mediator operates within plural 
and diverse networks of mediation, and that considers mediation 
practices in their concrete unfolding within specific contexts and 
social worlds.

The present call for papers, entitled Mediating Science: Mediation and 
Mediators of Scientific Knowledge in Complex Society, by the journal 
Comunicazioni Sociali, invites original contributions on the theme of 
mediators and mediation practices of scientific knowledge in 
contemporary society. Submissions may be theoretical, methodological, or 
empirical in nature and may draw on a variety of disciplinary 
perspectives, including philosophy, history and sociology of science, 
psychology and social psychology, and communication studies.

The theme of mediation and mediators of scientific knowledge can, for 
example, be explored in the following areas of investigation:

-             Traditional and emerging mediators of scientific 
knowledge: What is the role of journalists and teachers, as well as 
influencers, scientists, and digital communicators, in the mediation of 
science in today’s knowledge society? What role do institutional actors 
(health agencies, technical-scientific committees, regulatory bodies) 
play in the mediation of scientific knowledge? What is the role of 
certification protocols, fact-checking operators, and “epistemic trust” 
platforms in mediating science?

-             Legacy and digital media in the mediation of science: What 
role do media logics play in mediating scientific knowledge? How do data 
and algorithms contribute to the mediation of science? How do media 
infrastructures shape the form and visibility of scientific discourse? 
What is the role of social media platforms in modulating access to, 
circulation of, and polarization around scientific content?

-             Communicative practices and mediation processes: What are 
the main rhetorical, visual, and narrative strategies in the mediation 
of science (infographics, videos, storytelling) for specific audiences 
and recipients? What mechanisms of selection, simplification, 
translation, and contextualization of scientific knowledge are employed 
by different agents within the media system? How does dialogue and 
scientific controversy take shape in the public arena?

-             Trust, legitimation, and knowledge policies: How is trust 
in scientific mediators built or lost? How do scientific mediators 
support public trust in science, both among general audiences and within 
specific social worlds? What is the role of science communication in 
political legitimation or risk governance?

References

Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of 
public communication of science. In Handbook of Public Communication of 
Science and Technology. Routledge.

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. (2001). Acting in an Uncertain 
World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. MIT Press.

Cerroni, A. (2006). Scienza e società della conoscenza. Utet.

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The Mediated Construction of Reality. 
John Wiley & Sons.

Davies, S. & Horst M. (2016). Science Communication: Culture, Identity 
and Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan

Gomarasca, P., Graffigna, G., Savarese, M., Tosoni, S. (2021). Sapere 
scientifico e sapere laico: prove di fiducia. In Vita & Pensiero 4, pp 
87-95.

Hepp, A. (2019). Deep Mediatization. Routledge.

Luhmann, N. (1990). Sistemi sociali: fondamenti di una teoria generale. 
Il Mulino.

Tombolato, M. (2023). Trasformare l’informazione in conoscenza. Il ruolo 
della divulgazione scientifica nella formazione di cittadini 
epistemicamente responsabili. MeTis - Mondi educativi. Temi, indagini, 
suggestioni, 13(2), 50–67.

Trench, B. and Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging 
discipline. JCOM 9(03), C03

Rüfenacht, S., Woods, T., Agnello, G., Gold, M. M., Hummer, P., 
Land-Zandstra, A., & Sieber, A. (2021). Communication and dissemination 
in citizen science. In The Science of Citizen Science, Springer, pp.475-494.

Silverstone, R. (1999). Why Study the Media? Sage

Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the 
public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public 
Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415–426.

Tombolato, M. (2023). Trasformare l’informazione in conoscenza. Il ruolo 
della divulgazione scientifica nella formazione di cittadini 
epistemicamente responsabili. MeTis - Mondi educativi. Temi, indagini, 
suggestioni, 13(2), 50–67.

Submission details

February 15, 2026 – Deadline for abstract submission. Abstracts should 
be 300 to 400 words long (in English). All submissions must include 5 
keywords, the name of the author(s), institutional affiliation, contact 
details, and a short biography for each author. Submissions should be 
sent to (piermarco.aroldi /at/ unicatt.it) <mailto:(piermarco.aroldi /at/ unicatt.it)> 
and (redazione.cs /at/ unicatt.it) <mailto:(redazione.cs /at/ unicatt.it)>

February 27, 2026 – Authors will be notified of proposal acceptance.

May 29, 2026 – Deadline for submission of the full paper, if the 
proposal is accepted.

Submission of a paper implies that it is unpublished and not under 
consideration for publication elsewhere. No payment from the authors 
will be required

Articles must not exceed 5,000–6,000 words in English (including 
references). For editorial guidelines, please refer to the “Guide for 
the authors” section on the Comunicazioni Sociali website: 
http://comunicazionisociali.vitaepensiero.com 
<http://comunicazionisociali.vitaepensiero.com>

Contributions will be submitted through a double-blind peer review process.

Issue 3/2026 of Comunicazioni Sociali will be published in December 2026 
and available in open access on the journal's website.


---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ commlist.org)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------