[Article] Analyse des vulgarisateurs scientifiques sur Youtube

00:00 Intro
00:12 Version anglaise
27:30 Version française

💰 Ce n’est que grâce à votre soutien financier que je peux affecter mes gènes à la production de vidéos ! Si vous aimez leur travail et souhaitez qu’il continue, merci d’envisager un don ! Mes plateformes préférées pour ça sont KissKissBankBank et Paypal :

Références :

2. Burgess, J., and Green, J. (2018). YouTube: online video and participatory culture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Kavoori, A. (2011). Reading YouTube: the critical viewers guide. Bern, Switzerland:Peter Lang, Vol. 64
4. P. Snickars and P. Vonderau (Editors) (2009). The YouTube reader. Stockholm, Sweden: National Library of Sweden.
5. Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front. Commun. 4, 36.
6. Yang, W., and Qian, Z. (2011). Understanding the characteristics of category-specific YouTube videos. Entstanden Im Rahmen Eines Informatikseminars an Der Kanadischen Simon Fraser University
7. León, B., and Bourk, M. (2018b). “Investigating science-related online video,” in Communicating science and technology through online video, 148.
8. Allgaier, J. (2020). “Science and medicine on YouTube,” in Second international handbook of internet research. Editors J. Hunsinger, M. M. Allen, and L. Klastrup (Netherlands: Springer), 7–27.
9. Lecture Jeunesse (2020). Les 15-25 ans et les youtubers de sciences.
10. Schäfer, M. S., Füchslin, T., Metag, J., Kristiansen, S., and Rauchfleisch, A. (2018). The different audiences of science communication: a segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Publ. Understand. Sci. 27 (7), 836–856.
11. Wissenschaft im Dialog (2018). Wissenschaftsbarometer.
12. Hargittai, E., Füchslin, T., and Schäfer, M. S. (2018). How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Soc. Media Soc. 4, 2056305118797720.
13. Metag, J., Maier, M., Füchslin, T., Bromme, L., and Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Between active seekers and non-users: segments of science-related media usage in Switzerland and Germany. Environ. Commun. 12 (8), 1077–1094. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1463924
14. Muñoz Morcillo, J., Czurda, K., Geipel, A., and Trotha, C. Y. R. (2019). Producers of popular science Web videos—between new professionalism and old gender issues. 29.
15. Andersen, H., and Hepburn, B. (2016). “Scientific method,” in The stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2016). Editor E. N. Zalta (Redwood City, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University).
16. Allgaier, J. (2016). Science on YouTube: what users find when they search for climate science and climate manipulation. 4.
17. Insee (2019). Diplome le plus élevé selon l’ˆage et le sexe | Insee.
18. Schäfer, M. S. (2017b). “How changing media structures are affecting science news
coverage,” in The oxford handbook of the science of science communication, 770.
20. Kaul, L., Schrögel, P., and Humm, C. (2020). Environmental science communication for a young audience: a YouTube case study on the #EarthOvershootDay campaign. Front. Commun. 5, 1–17.
22. Crew, B., and Jia, H. (2020). Leading research institutions 2020. Nature [Epub ahead of print].
24. Velho, R. M., Mendes, A. M. F., and Azevedo, C. L. N. (2020). Communicating science with YouTube videos: how nine factors relate to and affect video views. Front. Commun. 5, 72. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.567606