Each day so far this week, I’ve shared my highlights of the National Academy of Science’s guide and research agenda for communicating science effectively (ch1, ch2, ch3). Today I’m posting my highlights from Chapter 4.
Chapter 4: Communicating science in a complex, competitive communication environment
Trends in the communication of science news
Not surprisingly, the report notes that people have shifted from traditional media like newspapers and TV to more online news, and that this is true especially for young and more scientifically literate people.
Many websites encourage and depend on content created by their visitors (Reddit is my favorite example), which can have great benefits: people can debate, comment on, share, and repurpose information. At the same time, newspapers and TV are devoting less time and space to science news, which means that there are fewer science journalists than there have been in the past. As a result, many communicators (including scientists) have turned to new outlets, like blogs, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Today’s media landscape is larger than it has been in the past, but it doesn’t offer clear ways for filtering out false or misleading information.
Coverage of science affects public perceptions
Issues that receive more media attention are perceived as more important and pressing. The leaders, organizations, or corporations associated with those issues are seen as more credible.
More research is needed to understand how media attention shapes perception of scientific information in rapidly changing online environments.
A further complication is that online information is often encountered in echo chambers or filter bubbles. Because people can use information-filtering tools to block information they disagree with and tend to create online social networks that are similar in ideology, preexisting beliefs can quickly become a filter for further information that a person encounters. Search algorithms also work by showing people the information they find agreeable and information that’s popular, adding to the concern that we can easily become stuck in feedback loops on the Internet, in which we’re exposed less and less to the contradictory information that may actually be important for us to encounter.
Even when we are exposed to varied information, online environments have features that are likely to affect how people receive that information. For example, number of views or likes on an article or video suggest how popular it is, which in turn is likely to affect how seriously a person considers it. Research on the nasty effect shows that reading rude reader comments on objective science reporting (which is completely commonplace on the Internet) increases readers’ perceptions that the story was biased and can push them to agree less with the story.
Opportunities for Communicating Science
- Social media
- Social networks
It’s important to note that studies so far suggest that only a small portion of the public reads science blogs. Many science blog readers are actually scientists themselves, which is not necessarily bad, but definitely noteworthy for communicators blogging.
The chapter closes with a discussion of widening knowledge gaps. While it may be easiest to target science communication to people who often go to museums, watch science documentaries, and keep up with science blogs, those people do not reflect the majority of Americans. It’s great that there are high-quality science communications for interested (educated) people to consume, but as they consume more and more, if the rest of the country remains at status quo (consuming little to no scientific information), knowledge gaps will keep widening. This is an important consideration for communicators (pointing at myself here as well).
Tomorrow I’ll post a synopsis of the report’s final chapter: Building the Knowledge Base for Effective Science Communication.