7/9/2017
Reflective practice
Representation of practical work
(part 1) and ethnographic research
(part 2)
Josien Visser - 2568673
Table of Contents
Part 1 – Representation of practical work……….2
Introduction of field and organization ... 4
Use of the media ... 4
Emotional responses ... 4
Science journalism organisations ... 5
De Kennis van Nu ... 6
Activities and routines ... 6
My activities and routines ... 7
Description of products: three exemplars ... 8
Reflection on science communicator learning curve ... 17
Selecting a subject ... 17
Being critical ... 17
Writing ... 18
Part 2 - Ethnographic Research………19
Summary ... 20
Introduction ... 21
The major influence of the media ... 21
The influence of health-related media exposure on behaviour ... 21
Framing can lead to misconceptions ... 22
De Kennis van Nu ... 22
Theoretical background ... 23
Health communication... 23
Roles in science communication ... 23
Methodology ... 26
Interviews... 26
Coding ... 27
Results ... 29
Roles of science journalists ... 29
Disseminative role ... 29
Interpretative journalism ... 30
Adversarial journalism ... 31
Mobilizing journalism ... 31
Actions in health communication ... 32
Conclusion and Discussion ... 36
Role conceptions of the editors ... 36
Shaping responsibility by actions and decisions ... 37
View of the public ... 37
Conclusion ... 38
Strenghts ... 38
Limitations ... 39
Recommendations for research... 39
Part 1
Representation of practical
work
Introduction of field and organization
Science communication can involve sharing information between researchers. However, it generally refers to communication of scientific information to non-experts (Given, 2008). According to Burns et al., (2003) science communication may be defined as ‘the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: Awareness, Enjoyment or other affective responses, Interest, Opinions, Understanding of science (AEIOU). Science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators and other members of the general public, either peer-to-peer or between groups.’
Use of the media
Science journalism fits well in the description of science communication. Firs of all, this field involves communication via the media. Usually, information from science practitioners is brought to the general public through a mediator, the journalist (Logan, 2001). The goal of a science journalist is transforming detailed information that includes scientific language to a form that is understandable and can be appreciated by the wider public. However, in this translation process it is crucial that scientific information remains correct
(Science-Journalism, n.d.).
Emotional responses
The other part of the definition of science communication by Burns et al., (2003) states that it should evoke personal response. In this paragraph, three of the five responses mentioned by Burns and his colleagues are addressed to demonstrate that this also holds for science journalism.
Awareness is created with science journalism by exposing the public to scientific
information. According to Batterham (2000), this can be done by making people aware that a subject exists. On the other hand, if the public is already informed about a subject,
knowledge can be expanded. Specialist probably know more about the subject than the science communicator. However, a science journalist can have a whole different view on the subject and surprise the expert (Logan, 2001).
Enjoyment is a personal response that is highly valued in science journalism, because these affective responses may cause more interest in science (Logan, 2001). Hence, people could become motivated to return to that media platform, which leads to more visitors. Since reader enjoyment is such an important goal in science communication, many studies examined ways to enhance appreciation of the public. For example, one study showed that reader enjoyment is increased by less complexity and jargon (Hunsaker, 1979).
‘Opinions are strongly linked with and influenced by, knowledge…’ (Logan, 2001, p.198). This suggests that increasing knowledge by presenting scientific information to a wider public, which is the aim of journalists, can alter a person’s attitude.
In conclusion, science journalism is a from of science communication, since it fits the description by Burns et al., (2003); it can be described as the use of the media to evoke personal responses to science.
Science journalism organisations
Various types science journalistic organizations originated at different times in history. Therefore, a brief historical overview of science journalism could provide the best indication what kind of organisations are active in this field. Historically, scientific news was most often distributed through newspapers. Still some Dutch newspapers, namely NRC handelsblad and de Volkskrant, have a department that is specialized in science. During the ‘20s the radio became a novel way to communicate, which stimulated science communication via this medium. Nowadays, various Dutch radio stations, like BNR and Radio 1, have a daily item that involves science.
After the radio came the television, which became popular in the 50’s. Already in the early days, some television station broadcast scientific programs, which were meant to educate young people. Today, het Klokhuis is Dutch program that serves this purpose. However, there are also many scientific programs that are aimed at adults, such as Mindf*ck. This program involves a magician that explains science through different tricks.
During the 1970s the view of science journalism as a specialization emerged. During this time, many science magazines arose. Such magazines, like Quest and National Geographic, are still highly popular in the Netherlands.
With the rise of the internet many other form of science communication emerged. Whereas people used to read articles in a magazine or newspaper, nowadays many scientific articles are viewed on a website. Therefore, there are many websites with science news.
Furthermore, blogs have also gained popularity. On these platforms not only science journalists, but each person can exchange scientific information (Musée-de-la-civilisation, 2009).
De Kennis van Nu
From February till July 2017, I did an internship at De Kennis van Nu, which is an initiative of the NTR. This, in turn, is part of the Dutch National Broadcaster (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep). The NTR has more programs which involve education These belong to the ‘kennis’ (knowledge) department. As can be seen from figure 2, De Kennis van Nu falls under this department. The mission of De Kennis van Nu organisation is; ‘deepening of science news and everything regarding science that is made by the national station’. This scientific branch of the national broadcaster uses different forms of media to communicate science. This organization has a website with scientific articles, works together with Radio 1 and a television program about developments in science. All these subsections of De Kennis van Nu have their own editors in chiefs and editors.
Figure 2. Organisational structure De Kennis van Nu.
Activities and routines
Since I was part of the web-editorial team, I will describe the main activities and routines form an editor’s perspective. Before the Monday morning meeting everyone would search Eurekalert, a website that shows important upcoming publications, and other websites with science news to get some ideas for the upcoming week. Every Monday at 10 o’clock the meeting starts and everyone would present their ideas.
Afterwards, the television department has a meeting with people how work for ‘online’. The online department takes care of all the social media posts, but also design the specials. Specials are a collection of articles, podcasts and videos about a certain subject. The special that is promoted that week always matches the subject of the television program of that week. I do not know the routine of this meeting, because I never attended it. I always
attended the meeting with the web editors and people from the radio, which occurred at the same time.
In this meeting, the schedule containing the subjects for the articles and radio items for every day of the week would be created. The rest of the week would be everyone for themselves. The people from the radio go to the building of the Dutch news. The television department is often gone for filming and the web editorial team stays in the office to write the articles they are assigned to on Monday. They usually write one article per day or when it is a longer one it takes two days.
My activities and routines
As mentioned above, everyone had to provide some ideas for articles of that week on Monday. Therefore, every Sunday evening I would look at Eurekalert if there were any interesting publications in the scientific magazines coming up. Furthermore, I would visit websites of Dutch Universities to see whether there are any appealing PhD defences that week. These PhD defences are often also a possibility for Radio 1, since these often involve researchers that speak Dutch.
Every Monday I would first attend the news meeting. Firstly, everyone would be asked whether there was something in the news that we could provide a scientific point of view for. For example, if there was a marathon that weekend we could call a movement scientist how this affects your body. After this round everyone, including me would present their scientific subjects, but also comment on studies and ideas of other people. Than we would make a list of possible ideas for that week. The meeting would end at 11 o’clock.
After the news meeting, the web editors and their colleagues of the radio sit together to discuss which subject would be covered that week and by whom. Furthermore, with each radio item that involved science an accompanying article needed to be written to post it on the websites (www.dekennisvannu.nl and www.nporadio1.nl), which was mostly assigned to me or another intern. This meeting usually ended before 12 o’clock and then everyone could start with their articles.
Before lunch I always already tried to reach out to researchers that I needed to contact for that day and the day after. This could either be to ask for the scientific article or to schedule an interview. If a Dutch scientist contributed to the study I would arrange an interview with this person. If this was not the case, I tried to find an expert to ask about the relevance of the study. However, when the study involved neuroscience I often also relied on my own expertise.
Before having an interview, I would already read the article and prepare some questions. Often, I would already start writing, because that usually helps me understand the matter. Sometimes also asked a colleague about their point of view. After gathering all the
information, I could write my article. However, sometimes I would decide that the study is not good enough for an article. When this was the case, I first had to discuss the matter with the Editor in Chief. Subsequently, I could select another subject.
When I pursued to write the piece and the article was finished, I would send it to the
researcher to verify that I understood everything correctly. After implanting the researcher’s feedback, I would send the article to one of my colleagues for checking and refining. Then I would get it back and reread it again. When this was done I would find a suitable picture after which I could post it on the site. In case it was also for Radio 1, I also had to post it on their website. When the article was posted on the website I would inform my colleagues that work for online. Subsequently, they would post it on Twitter and Facebook. I would repeat this procedure till the end of the week.
Description of products: three exemplars
In this sections three articles that I wrote for De Kennis van Nu are presented. I chose all these subjects and they were created along the routines described above. The first piece was selected for presentation, since this is an article that I wrote in my first week in the editorial office. This article describes how iron accumulates in certain brain areas when using cocaine. Mal function of these brain areas could cause even more difficulties in rehabilitation. At first, I wrote this article as a neuroscientist and I thought the scientific content was already interesting enough. However, I still wrote to academically. With this article, I learned to let my readers see why this study is relevant. I will elaborate on this in the next chapter (reflection on science communicator learning curve).
The second article dealt with the immune system of plants. This was probably the most challenging subject during my internship. First of all, during the meeting in which we present our subject for that week, a lot of editors told me that many people are not interested in plants. However, I thought it was a really interesting study, so I still pursued. Secondly, the study was highly technical and also the expert that I called also had difficulty explaining it to me, since I am actually not educated in that field. If I already have difficulty understanding it, it is even harder to write it down comprehensible, but also appealing way for the readers. With the help of editors that did not do any biology related studies I eventually wrote an article that was highly popular, evoked many reactions and was still scientifically adequate. The last article is a typical representation of my work that I wrote this month. Coming to the end of my internship, I often write articles about PhD defences. Since I am one of the few editors who searches websites of the Dutch universities, my subjects are often selected for a radio item. This example is a PhD defence of the Raboud University about a learning method that can help elderly that suffer from dementia to learn daily things. For example, an elderly man loved playing the piano. However, he just moved to a nursing home and the piano is on another floor. The nurses did not have time to bring him there all the time, so via this
learning method they taught him to find the piano. I am particularly proud of this article, since editors of Radio 1 actually went to the nursing home to make a radio report about it. Afterwards the researcher told something about the study in the studio. Usually, only the latter happens when one of my subjects makes it to Radio 1. Furthermore, I learned that you have to be very careful with your words while writing about a sensitive subject. The first title that I posted online contained ‘demente ouderen’ (demented elderly people). This caused many reactions, since you are not supposed to so demented, but elderly with dementia. I will never make that mistake again.
IJzerophoping in hersenen door
cokegebruik
DO. 23 FEB. 2017 — ARTIKEL
Deel dit artikel
Cocaïnegebruik leidt tot ijzerophoping in de hersenen van de
gebruiker. Dit kan hersenschade opleveren, wat afkicken moeilijker
maakt.
Het was al bekend dat verslaving veranderingen veroorzaakt in het brein, die zich gedurende een verslaving steeds verder ontwi kkelen, en leiden tot een onbeheersbare hunkering naar drugs.
Door verslaving raakt namelijk een gebied in het midden van de hersenen vergroot. Dat gebied, de putamen, speelt een rol in gewoontevorming.
Voor verslaafden is drugsgebruik een gewoonte: ze ne men hun drugs regelmatig en op dezelfde plek. Gewoontes zijn vaak heel moeilijk af te leren. Naarmate het gebruiken van drugs meer inslijt als gewoonte, wordt afkicken zwaarder.
Geluksstofjes
Deze week verscheen nieuw onderzoek door wetenschappers van de University of Cambridge. Dat onderzoek toont aan dat cocaïnegebruik ijzerophoping veroorzaakt in bepaalde hersendelen. De onderzoekers waren geïnteresseerd in ijzerconcentraties in de hersenen, omdat dat een rol speelt in het aanmaken van een lichaamseigen stof die zorgt voor een geluksgevoel, genaamd dopamine. Door cocaïnegebruik komen grote hoeveelheden dopamine vrij in het brein. Niet gek dus dat cocaïnegebruik een geluksgevoel veroorzaakt.
IJzer meten met magneten
De onderzoekers vergeleken de ijzerconce ntraties in hersenen van
verslaafden met die van gezonde mensen. Ze maten de ijzerconcentraties door hersenscans te maken die rekening houden met verschillen in
magnetische eigenschappen van stoffen. IJzer reageert bijvoorbeeld sterker op een magneet dan water. Door deze verschillen in kaart te brengen kan worden vastgesteld in welke hersendelen veel ijzer zit.
Afkicken wordt moeilijker
Zo ontdekten ze dat bij cocaïneverslaafden ijzer overmatig ophoopt in de globus pallidus. Dit is een gebied in het midden van de hersenen dat het remmen van gedrag reguleert. IJzerophoping kan ernstige gevolgen
hebben voor de cocaïnegebruiker: het kan ervoor zorgen dat hersencellen in de globus pallidus afsterven. Omdat dit hersengebied belangrijk is voor het remmen van gedrag, kan een beschadiging het onderdrukken van de hunkering naar drugs moeilijker maken voor langdurig verslaafden. Dit zou kunnen verklaren waarom het moeilijker is om af te kicken naarmate
iemand langer drugs gebruikt.
Bron: Ersche, K. et al.; Disrupted iron regulation in the brain and periphery in cocaine addiction; Translational Psychiatry, 21 -2-2017.
Planten zetten schaar in virussen
WO. 22 MRT. 2017 — ARTIKEL
Deel dit artikel
Het immuunsysteem van planten werkt heel anders dan dat van mensen. Planten kunnen het genetische materiaal van virussen herkennen en kapot knippen. Een slimme truc! Onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Tokyo onderzochten hoe planten ervoor zorgen dat ze niet zichzelf gaan aanvallen.
Lange tijd deden wetenschappers vooral onderzoek naar het immuunsysteem van mens en dier. Tegenwoordig is er steeds meer aa ndacht voor de werking van de verdedigingsmechanismen in planten. Dit is belangrijk voor het behoud van onze gewassen. Als een mens geveld wordt door een virus dan binden antistoffen zich aan een virus waarna deze onschadelijk gemaakt wordt. Een van de voornaamste verdedigingsmechanismen tegen virussen van planten is
het herkennen en verknippen van het viraal genetisch materiaal (RNA). Zo wordt de voortplanting van virussen gestopt.
Bescherming plantaardig RNA door kralenstaart
De meeste virussen bestaan alleen uit een omhulsel met daarin RNA. W anneer een virus een plant infecteert, injecteert deze viraal RNA in een plantencel. Het erfelijk materiaal van het virus geeft de cel opdracht om meer virussen aan te maken. Planten bevatten zelf ook RNA. Lange tijd was het onduidelijk hoe een plant viraal RNA kan onderscheiden van zijn eigen materiaal. W etenschappers waren dus erg benieuwd hoe een plant de juiste stukjes genetisch materiaal kapot knipt en niet zichzelf aanvalt.
Onderzoekers van de Universiteit van T okyo losten deze vraag deels op. De wetenschappers bootsten de biologische immuunprocessen van een plant na in een reageerbuis. W anneer zij RNA met een soort kraalachtige staart, genaamd poly(A)staart, in de reageerbuis stopten dan kwam het immuunsysteem n iet in actie. Voegden zij een stukje RNA toe zonder zo’n staart dan kopiëren unieke enzymen het RNA-fragment en activeerde het verdedigingsmechanisme. Zo concludeerden de wetenschappers dat de kralenstaart het plantaardige RNA beschermt.
Bruikbaar planten-RNA is altijd voorzien van een kraalachtige staart, genaamd poly(A) staart. W etenschappers vermoedde al langer dat de kralenstaart
plantaardig RNA beschermt, maar er is nu eindelijk experimenteel bewijs voor. Met deze ontdekking hebben de onderzoekers een tipje van de sluier gelicht van de mechanismen waarmee een plant een auto -immuun reactie kan voorkomen.
Planten gebruiken een virus-mugshot
Wanneer een virus kapot geknipt is gebruiken planten deze stukjes als een soort mugshot. Stukjes viraal RNA worden aan een uniek knipenzym van de plant gehangen. Hierdoor kan dit enzym het RNA van de indringer dat nog in de cel zit heel specifiek herkennen en onschadelijk maken. Het herkennen en knippen van RNA gebeurd ook in dierlijke cellen, maar uniek aan planten is dat zij stukjes viraal RNA kunnen kopiëren.
De plantencel hangt het gekopieerde virus -RNA aan nog meer knipenzymen. Dit is alsof je in grote getalen mugshots van indringers uitprint en verspreidt.
Daardoor kan de plant virus-RNA sneller herkennen en vervolgens afbreken. Volgens Richard Kormelink, viroloog aan de Universiteit van Wageningen, zorgt juist deze versterkte herkenning en afbraak van viraal RNA in planten ervoor dat verknippen van viraal genetisch materiaal als afweerreactie tegen virusinfecties kan dienen.
Kyungmin Baeg et al. The poly(A) tail blocks RDR6 from converting self mRNAs into substrates for gene silencing . Nature Plants, 20 maart 2017.
Ouderen met dementie kunnen wel degelijk
nieuwe dingen leren
donderdag 8 juni 2017 | NTR | Josien Visser
Mensen met dementie zijn niet in staat nog dingen te leren, wordt vaak gedacht. Niets blijkt minder waar.
Het kost misschien wat meer moeite, maar met de juiste leermethode kunnen ouderen met dementie heel goed zelf weer een rondje door het park lopen of een kopje koffie zetten. Dit maakt ze minder zorgafhankelijk en geeft ze meer gevoel van zelfstandigheid.
Maartje de Werd van het Radboudumc promoveerde vorige week op haar onderzoek naar ‘foutloos leren’, een manier om mensen met dementie alledaagse taken aan te leren. Deze methode is gebaseerd op het idee dat leren bij mensen met een hersenbeschadiging beter gaat wanneer je fouten tijdens de aanleerfase voorkomt. De Werd: “Ook fouten worden opgeslagen in het brein, maar iemand met dementie weet niet meer of de opgeslagen
handeling goed of fout is.” Deze leermethode was al langer bekend, maar De Werd en haar collega’s onderzochten foutloos leren voor het eerst in de thuissituatie.
Foutloos leren voor dementerenden
Luister live Toevoegen aa n afspe ellijst
http://www.nporadio1.nl/wetenschap-techniek/4516-ouderen-met-dementie-kunnen-wel-degelijk-nieuwe-dingen-leren
Hoe werkt het?
Foutloos leren gaat als volgt. Stel, iemand wil leren telefoneren. Zo’n taak wordt in stappen opgedeeld. De therapeut doet elke stap voor - de groene knop indrukken, bijvoorbeeld - en de patiënt doet die na. De Werd: "Het is dus
heel erg actief begeleiden." Wanneer de persoon met dementie weet wat hij moet doen, wordt de begeleiding langzaam afgebouwd.
Volgens De Werd kan deze techniek in alle stadia van dementie worden gebruikt en voor heel veel alledaagse taken worden toegepast, van
koffiezetten en e-mailen, tot de weg naar huis vinden. Het moeten wel taken zijn met een begin en een eind en met niet al te veel keuzemogelijkheden. Daarnaast moet je heel consequent zijn bij het aanleren. De Werd: “Zodra je de stappen verandert, is het voor iemand met een dementie een heel nieuwe taak.”
Voor iedereen een kopje koffie
Er zijn al verschillende succesverhalen ven mensen met dementie die door deze leermethode dingen opnieuw konden doen. De Werd: ‘Er was
bijvoorbeeld een mevrouw die heel graag andere mensen hielp. Zij leerde door middel van foutloos leren koffiezetten voor de hele afdeling.” Verder hield meneer Hendrickx heel veel van piano spelen. Maar door zijn dementie kon hij de piano in het verzorgingstehuis niet vinden, wat het uitvoeren van zijn
geliefde hobby verhinderde. Foutloos leren hielp hem om weer bij zijn piano te komen. Hij gaat nu steeds vaker weer muziek maken (Zie onderstaande
video's). De Werd: “Je ziet meteen dat deze mensen veel vrolijker zijn. Ze krijgen hun zelfstandigheid weer terug. Ook voor behandelaren is het prettig om te kijken naar wat iemand met dementie nog wel kan in plaats van alleen maar met de achteruitgang van een patiënt bezig te zijn.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZur1xtqcng https://youtu.be/XsqOWkTxFi4
Op deze site kunt u meer informatie vinden over het lerend vermogen van mensen met dementie.
Reflection on science communicator learning curve
As an editor, you need to have different skills to write a successful story. First of all, you need to be able to select an appealing subject. Secondly, it is important to be critical and not be afraid to ask critical questions to researchers. Lastly, of course you need to be able to write. In this chapter I will reflect on my learning experience of these skills within De Kennis van Nu.
Selecting a subject
Selecting a subject is the first step for a successful article. Furthermore, writing about a subject that interests you makes writing much easier. If I look back at the lists, I notice that I mostly chose subjects within the field of neuroscience at the beginning of my internship. Therefore, my lists were not that long. At that time, I was still a reserved with presenting my ideas and the field of neuroscience falls more within my comfort zone. As I got to know the people better and got more familiar with other subject like archaeology and philosophy through writing, I enlarged my topic selection. However, I still choose many topics that deal with biology. This could be because it is close to my field of study and therefore I am more experienced in judging whether it is relevant. However, I also feel that these kind subjects are appreciated by other editors and by the public.
Another thing that I noticed is that editors like it when you select a study of which the researchers work at a Dutch university. First of all, people are often proud if people from their country did some important discoveries. But for the editors this is also more
interesting, because Dutch speaking researchers can be invited for the radio or they can be asked for the television program if they live in the Netherlands. Therefore, I also search websites of the Dutch universities for interesting subjects.
Being critical
As my editor of chiefs calls it: ‘you need a bullshit detector as a science journalist.’ And I agree with him. If you are not critical as an expert in writing about science this can seriously damage your credibility. During my neuroscientific studies, I learned about doing research and I also did research myself. Therefore, I feel that I was already capable of judging a study critically. In my article ‘Krijg je voor elk uur hardlopen zeven uur levenswinst?’ I even debunk a study.
Of course, you cannot know everything. Therefore, you also need to call researchers to ask some information or ask critical questions. When I started my internship, I was absolutely terrified of calling. Even calling a dentist was something I did not like to do. However, during my internship I often had to pick up that phone and call scientists. At the beginning, I always had the feeling that I was interrupting the busy lives of people I was calling and I was still hesitant in asking critical questions. However, as my internship progressed, I noticed that researchers actually like talking about their work. Furthermore, they also like it when you challenge them with another point of view. Hence, I lost my fear of calling and I even made an appointment with my dentist. However, many of my colleagues directly pick up the phone and call a researcher if they have their number. I still rather make an appointment by
mail with someone before calling, since I do not want to interrupt them in their work. It would be good if I also would overcome this barrier, since it would save me a lot of time. Writing
What I have learned during this internship is that popularized writing is completely different from academic writing. Since I have an academic background, sometimes this could be quite a challenge. I feel that during my time at De Kennis van Nu, I have been able to grow and learn many skills that are important for a science journalist. However, I am still struggling with some things. Especially structure of an article is a skill I have not mastered yet. One of the first articles I wrote for De Kennis van Nu is the one displayed above about iron accumulation in the brain caused by cocaine. I think I had to rewrite this piece five times. First, I just wrote about the study itself, but I was not clear why this would be interesting for the public. Now I learned that you have to involve your reader. For example, why is it so bad that this happens? In the case of the article of cocaine I therefore explained that it could make rehabilitation even more difficult. Additionally, in the beginning I found it hard to write in an understandable way about neuroscientific research. I had the feeling that I simplified a lot. However, people that did not study neuroscience could not follow it. If I write about neuroscience now my editor in chief understands it. One of the ways that helps you not to overwhelm your public with complex names of brain areas is by first explaining what that brain area is important for and put the name at the end. This gives your public the feeling that the difficult name is not important to remember. Lastly, I used passive language throughout. Now, I learned that an active language makes an article more appealing for the reader. However, sometimes I still find it hard to write all my sentences actively.
One thing that I am still struggling with is the structure of the text. As an academic I am used to put your conclusions in the end and first provide your reader with some background information. However, my editor in chief says that you immediately have to grasp the attention of your public with your conclusion. With some articles it now seems logical to put the conclusion at the beginning, but with others I still feel that some background
information is needed for the reader to understand it. Then I need an example of my editor in chief to see how it should be. So, a right structure does not always flow naturally out of my pen.
Overall, I feel that I have learned many skills in these four months. I know how to engage my audience and how to translate complex matter to something understandable for the public. Am I done learning how to right? Off course not. I still have some things that I struggle with. For example, the structure and maintaining active language throughout. Another skill that I find hard, that I did not mention yet, is coming up with titles. Moreover, a good title makes someone click. I will keep on working on these things for two more weeks at De Kennis van Nu. Moreover, even the most experienced science journalists keep on learning, since there is no perfect way to write. During this internship I learned the beginnings, which I will apply in the future. I already bought a domain name that enables me to continue writing on my own blog.
Part 2
Summary
The way journalists report about health can influence the behaviour of their readers. Since health journalists can have such a major impact it is important to get more insights in the current inventory of these people. Therefore, this study examined how health journalists shape responsibility when reporting about health and how this is reflected in their actions and decisions. The research was executed with editors of De Kennis van Nu, the science department of the Dutch national broadcaster, and involved participant observation and interviewing. It was concluded that editors of De Kennis van Nu view their responsibilities as distributing information to a wide public in a fast, but verified way. However, they also wish to offer more context and meaning if there is enough time. These conceptions are also reflected in their actions, which involve choosing subjects that concern many people, calling experts to gather verified information and, by some, including multiple studies to provide context. Furthermore, the editors of De Kennis van Nu do not feel responsible for the behaviour of their readers after reading one of their articles, which is due the way they write; from the researcher’s perspective.
Introduction
Gaining insight in how science journalists define their responsibilities could give us
information about how they gather and publish scientific information for a wider public. As Weaver and Wilhoit (1996, p. xi) describe ‘…we care greatly about the health and sanitary habits of those who work in restaurants or sausage factories. For such reasons, we should care about journalists and their news-processing practices. If who American jounalists are influences shapes and biases the news, we should care very much about the current inventory of this species.’ Especially reporting about health can have a major impact on readers, but also on officials who can influence health policy (Cho, 2006). Therefore, this study aims to increase understanding about how journalists view their responsibilities and how this is reflected in their actions when reporting about health in order to get more understanding about the culture of health journalists.
The major influence of the media
A theory by Castells (2007) illustrates why journalists can have major influence on their public. According to Castells (2007), power is the capacity to shape the minds of people. He reasons that the way people think influences the way society is constructed. Therefore, if you can change the way people think, you can change society. Additionally, the media do not have power, but they ‘constitute the space where power is decided’ (Castells, 2007, p.242). Through history, science largely changed the way people act and think. Hence, one can argue that science holds power. For example, more than one hundred years ago, washing your hand was not part of our daily routine. Scientific studies showed that washing your hands daily reduced the spread of infection (Semmelweis, 1861). Nowadays, among most people washing your hands is common practice. In other words, scientists are the holders of the power, because it changes the way we behave. The task of science journalists is to inform lay-people about scientific discoveries. Hence, these journalists are the link between the public and scientists.
The influence of health-related media exposure on behaviour
The way journalists communicate about health is especially a subject that can directly influence behaviour of people and particularly that of patients (Dentzer, 2009). For instance, patients can demand for novel drugs from their doctor due to media exposure of a new treatment. Such exposure is often stimulated by pharmaceutical industries (Yamey, 2001). This shows that patients do not passively accept their doctor’s advise, but are actively seeking information to create their own medical understanding.
Patients are not only advicing doctors in prescribing certain drugs, self-diagnosis is currently also common practice. In America, 1/3 of the people state that they experience insomnia symptoms. However, six percent is medically diagnosed with this disorder (National Sleep Foundation, 2001). Research shows that media play an important role in people’s
perception of sleepiness. Textual information (e.g. news articles, in magazines or on the internet) is one of the main sources that lay-people use for self-diagnosis. Furthermore, these texts are often framed as advice from an expert. In addition to knowledge by text, individuals often use apps to record their sleep-patterns as a tool for self-diagnosis (Kroll-Smith, 2003). Although many Americans report having insomnia sypmtoms based on self
diagnosis, many individuals refrain from seeing a doctor. They often feel that their symptoms are not serious enough or that doctors cannot help them (National Sleep
Foundation, 2001). Without media exposure most Americans would probably not be aware of insomnia and thus be less self-conscious about this phenomenon. Again this shows that media has the capacity to shape people’s minds.
Science journalists can alter people’s mind or constitute the space where power is decided in two ways. On the one hand, by choosing articles they want to write about. If a scientific finding does not get picked up by the media, the public will not become aware of it. Hence, it will not affect these people. On the other hand, in order to make a scientific story
comprehendable and interesting for the readers, science journalists make use of frames.
Framing can lead to misconceptions
Frames are used by the media to illustrate the problem, who or what is responsible and the possible solution (Bubela, et al., 2009). Framing largely influences the way this subject is perceived by the public and to what extend the mind shaped. For example, health news about the same subject can be framed in a positive, ‘undergoing a screening test can
prolong your survival’ or a negative way, ‘survival can be shortened if you do not under go a screening test’. The various reactions that people can have depending on the way
something is presented is called the framing effect. Avoiding risk is associated with a positive frame. On the other hand, risk seeking behaviour is often stimulated by negative frames (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
Frames do not only lead to various reactions, but it can also lead to misconceptions (Kroll-Smith, 2003). For example, in the Netherlands, the manner of reporting about influence of processed of meat on cancer led to misinterpretation of health risks. In 2015, many Dutch media sources, including the television news1, reported that high intake of red or processed
meat causes almost twenty times higher risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancer234.
However, looking closer at the numbers, the increased risk of cancer turned out much smaller than implied by the media. The following days eight percent less meat was sold (Anon., 2015). As the example regarding meat and cancer illustrates, the way media describes scientific findings regarding health and health risks can seriously influence behaviour of the viewer.
De Kennis van Nu
De Kennis van Nu was one of the first news organisations to refute the claim that red and processed meat consumption causes a twenty times risk increase.5 De Kennis van Nu is the
science department of the NTR, a Dutch public-service broadcaster, that deals with science. Or as this department states ‘deepening of science news and everything regarding science
1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXRQNlxN5KY (1.27 – 1.40) 2 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/10/27/asbest-sigaretten-en-worst-1549807-a1023281 3 https://www.wkof.nl/nl/kanker-voorkomen/verklein-de-kans-op-kanker/vlees-en-kanker 4 http://www.metronieuws.nl/overig/2015/10/bacon-is-net-zo-kankerverwekkend-als-roken 5 https://dekennisvannu.nl/site/artikel/Waarom-het-verband-tussen-bewerkt-vlees-en-darmkanker-niet-moet-worden-overdreven/7618
that is made by the national station’. Within the Kennis van Nu, science is communicated via different media, namely website articles, radio and television.
This reflective practice aims to get insights in how the web editorial team of ‘de Kennis van Nu’ shape responsibility when communicating about health by analysing role conceptions and modes of operations. This study should provide more insight in the feeling of
accountability and considerations of the editors while working on an article regarding health. Therefore, the main question that will be answered within this research is: How do science communicators of De Kennis van Nu shape responsibility when communicating about health?
Theoretical background
To answer the main question: “How do science communicators of De Kennis van Nu shape
responsibility when communicating about health risks?”, it is important to obtain more
insights in the different concepts. First of all, the term health communication needs to be defined in order to avoid misconceptions about what is regarded health journalism in this study. Furthermore, the concept shaping responsible science communication will be addressed.
Health communication
In this study, it was decided not to use the definition of health by the World Health
Organization (WHO) from 1948: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Already for sixty years there is much criticism towards this definition. One of the most critiqued parts is the word ‘complete’. If only complete well-being is considered healthy, then that “would leave most of us
unhealthy most of the time” (Smith, 2008). Furthermore, the nature of diseases and biggest threats have changed since 1948. In that time, acute diseases were the major problem causing most deaths among human beings. Nowadays, chronic diseases, like diabetes or HIV, affect most people around the world. Within the WHO definition people with a chronic illness are always ill and it does not take into account the feeling of wellbeing of a person (for further information about this matter please read the following review: (Huber, et al., 2011). Because of these limitations in the definition by the WHO it was decided to use a more recent description of health. Namely, ‘Health is the level of functional and metabolic efficiency of a living organism. In humans, it is the ability of individuals or communities to adapt and self-manage when facing physical, mental, psychological and social changes (Huber, et al., 2011).’ For this research, the ability to adapt and self-manage means reporting about being unhealthy, but also to avoid becoming unhealthy.
Roles in science communication
In this article, the concept responsible science communication will be defined by the different roles in science communication, because roles define how a professional group should behave (Biddle, 1986). A role shapes the responsibilities attached with it.
Biddle (1986) described a role as ‘…patterned and characteristic social behaviours, parts or identities that are assumed by social participants, and scripts or expectations for behaviour
that are understood by all and adhered to by performers’. Expectations regarding a certain profession generate these roles. Weaver and Wilhoit (1986) identified three roles for
journalists: interpretive, adversarial and disseminator. In 1996, Weaver and Wilhoit included a fourth role called populist mobilizer. In this paragraph, these roles different will be
considered.
Disseminative journalism
In this role, the main goal of the journalist is distributing information fast, but verified with attributed source information. These articles include the who, what, when and where, but no further context and reasons for the study are provided. This also involves news that interests a wide public (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986; Culbertson, 1981). Within this study this role will be conceptualized as providing the public with facts in an objective way.
Interpretative journalism
Within this role journalists are not only providing the public with factual information, but also give context explanation and meaning to their story. Journalists ‘provide analysis and interpretation of complex problems’. This can both be objectively or subjectively (Weaver, et al., 2007). The information that is provided is more than the facts that come forth from the disseminative role, since it also involves explanations or contextualizations.
Adversarial journalism
Adversarial journalists feel that it is their duty to be sceptical towards public officials and businesses. They always have to be aware of special interests of these officials or businesses (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996). Within health journalism an example could be questioning
research regarding drugs carried out by a pharmaceutical company. The journalist in this role will challenge the integrity or credibility of individuals or groups. In Carpenter et al., (2007, p. 590), this adversarial role enactment was defined as ‘content in which the identifies a specific target as such as government officials, union bosses, businesses, industries, and so on, as being responsible for the cause or continuation of a problem’. Mobilizing journalism
The last role involves motivating the readers to express their opinions or undertake actions. A mobilizing journalist regards engaging citizens in debates as important. The concept that will be used here is based on the definition by Lemert et al., (1977): ‘content that allows people to act on attitudes they already possess.’
To our knowledge, there has not been any research on the production of health news by Dutch journalists. In order to gain insights about how this professional group feels they should behave the first sub question of this paper is:
What roles do the editors of De Kennis van Nu take when communicating about health?
Furthermore, as illustrated in figure 1, previous research showed that role conception influences news content. It was hypothesized that different roles conceptions lead to other decisions and actions by the journalists and this gives rise to distinctive content. Role conception was determined by surveys and reporting style by content analysis (Van Dalen, et al., 2012). The intermediate step, decisions and actions, was not examined in this study.
Earlier studies included scenarios in their study showed a connection between role
conceptions and decisions (Köcher, 1986). However, these kinds of studies are limited and did not involve health journalism. Therefore, the second sub questions is:
Which decisions and actions are related to these role conceptions of science journalists of De Kennis van Nu?
Fig 1. Relationship between roles, responsibilities, decisions and actions and the content of an article of a journalist.
Lastly, since health journalists can have a major influence on their audience (Dentzer, 2009; Kroll-Smith, 2003; Yamey, 2001), this is the main group of people that they have
responsibility for. Therefore, the last sub questions that came forward was:
How do editors of De Kennis van Nu view their public?
Methodology
In order to examine how health journalists envision their responsibility and make decisions accordingly, this research is qualitive. With qualitive research an in-depth understanding of human behaviour can be acquired (Alasuutari, 2009). Moreover, qualitative methods
contribute to a ‘deeper’ understanding of human behaviour than qualitative research would provide (Gill, et al., 2008). Journalists have routines to handle novel news (Tuchman, 1973). In order to investigate the culture of science journalists, I became part of the web editorial staff of De Kennis van Nu.
Data was acquired full-time in a 4-month period while working as an editor. Although De Kennis van Nu uses radio, television and a website to communicate science to the public, due to time considerations it was decided only to focus on the web-editorial team. Thus, the journalist whose main job it is to write articles. Another criterium of inclusion was that journalist should have written at least one article about health during this period. All the web-editors fulfilled these criteria. The interns were not included in this research due to lack of experience.
While working at the editorial office, I intended to observe web editors while they were working on health-related articles or discussing the subject. At the end of each day I would write down my observations. However, during my time at the office, the occupancy was extremely low. Hence, additional interviews were planned with journalists to gather enough data.
Interviews
The goal of interviews is to “explore the views, experiences, beliefs and/ or motivations of individuals on specific matters (Gill, et al., 2008).” Therefore, interviews are a good method to reveal sense of responsibility of editors. Furthermore, interviews could also give insights which considerations and actions are related to the roles web editors identify with. In addition, according to Gill et al., (2008) interviews are most appropriate when little is known about the research subject. Studying how science communicators behave is referred to as research on production. Not much research has been done that involved studying the production phase of health stories by the media Moreover, none of these studies have been performed in the Netherlands (Seale, 2003). Therefore, interviews are a suitable method to gain more insights in the culture of these science communicators.
It was decided to perform semi-structured interviews to ask journalists about their
viewpoints. A semi-structured interview consists of a few key questions that comprise the areas that need to be explored. Unlike a structured interview, that consist only of
predetermined questions, a semi-structured interview is more flexible. In the latter, the conversation can diverge in order to analyse an idea further (Gill, et al., 2008). The key-questions in this semi-structured interview included: 1. Do you see any major problems with how health is covered in the Dutch media? 2. What do you think about the way there is communicated about health within this organisation? 3. What is your main task, as a science journalist, when writing about health? 4. Is it your job to check up on science? 5. Are there situations in which you would decide to check funding of the research? 6. Are you
responsible for the behaviour changes of your public after they read one of your articles? 7. Are their circumstances in which you can decide not to write about a subject? 8. How do you make sure that there are no mistakes in your article? 9. How do you deal with
contextual information in your article? Each journalist was interviewed two till five times, depending on their availability. The duration of the interview sessions ranged from 10 till 20 minutes.
The last day of every week, all acquired data of observations and semi-structured interviews was transcribed and ordered. Furthermore, this day was also used for coding, which will be described below.
Coding
One researcher coded the transcript of the interviews. Coding was initially performed to explore how the responses editors view their responsibilities by examining whether their responses correspond with the four previously described roles; disseminator, interpretative, adversarial and mobilizer (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996; Weaver, et al., 2007). The disseminator role was ascribed to quotes by the editors that involved
communicating about health to a wide audience in a fast, but verified way. Responses were considered interpretative when the journalists mentioned that their responsibility involves giving context and explanation in a story about health. ‘Adversarial journalism’ was assigned to quotes that mentioned scepticism towards authorities and checking financial background of research. Lastly, responses were coded as mobilizing if the journalists aim was to
stimulate people to express their opinion or undertake action. This procedure answers to first sub question; What roles do the editors of De Kennis van Nu take when communicating
about health?
As mentioned before, role perception influences article content (Van Dalen, et al., 2012). Another study showed that different role perceptions lead to different decisions (Köcher, 1986). However, this conclusion was based on a survey with scenarios. This is highly different from real life situations, since in this survey there was a limited choice in options and in real life there is an infinite amount of possible decisions and actions. Furthermore, in this research political journalists were examined. Hence, the scenarios were not suitable to compare with events that could occur when reporting about health. Because of these major differences it was decided that no hypotheses could be formed for the second sub question;
Which decisions and actions are related to these role conceptions of science journalists of De Kennis van Nu? Hence, to examine the relationship between role conceptions and decisions
of health journalists it was decided to use a grounded theory approach. This approach is not about testing previous theories, but about discovering new theories that emerge from the data. This coding procedure involves constant comparison of responses, which can uncover connections (Burnard, 1991). In order to be able to answer the second sub question, firstly, it was determined which responses described a decision or an action. According to the Cambridge dictionary, a decision is defined as ‘a choice that you make about something after thinking about several possibilities’. And an action describes ‘the process of doing something’. Subsequently, by the use of open coding distinct concepts and categories were created. Thereafter, these concepts and categories were examined in order to find relations,
which is called axial coding (Pandit, 1996). By starting coding from the first week, already from the beginning theories could be formed. If necessary, these hypotheses were rejected. The last research question How do editors of De Kennis van Nu view their public? was also coded using inductive methodology. The responses that could answer this question should involve mentioning the readers. Therefore, all the quotes that contained the word reader, public, audience, people or an equivalent were analysed. Furthermore, the responses on the question ‘are you responsible for the behaviour changes of your public after they read one of your articles?’ were also taken into account.
Figure 2. Overview of research objective, research question, sub-questions and research methods.
Results
This section investigates how editors of De Kennis van Nu shape responsibility. The roles and the themes that emerged from the data are discussed, described and supported with
examples.
Roles of science journalists
To examine what roles the editors of De Kennis van Nu take when communicating about health, in this paragraph the results for each of role; disseminative, interpretative, adversarial and mobilizing, will be discussed separately.
Disseminative role
Reaching a wide audienceReaching a wide audience was a characteristic of the disseminative role that was often mentioned by the editors. For De Kennis van Nu it is important to reach a wide audience, since the website needs to obtain 100.000 visitors a month by the end of the year. They hope to achieve this goal by writing about subject that are appealing for many people. ‘We should write about health at least once a week. You actually always have an audience
for such subjects, because it always concerns someone.’6 Fast distribution of information
Journalists indicated that it is important not to spend too much time on one article. This corresponds with the feature distributing information fast. Especially in the 4-month period that I did my internship, a fast production of articles was necessary, because during this there was a little number of editors working for De Kennis van Nu.
‘How much time do you spend on research? We cannot always do what we want. Especially not with this lower occupancy.’7
Providing information
As described in the result section of the third sub question (see below), the editors do not feel responsible for the actions of their readers. One of the journalists said: People have
their own responsibility, it is only an article on a website.8 This response shows that the responsibility of a health journalist stops once the information is provided.
Verifying information
Within De Kennis van Nu providing fully verified and accurate information is highly important. All the editors mentioned that they call experts to make sure that what they
6 Je hebt eigenlijk altijd wel een publiek ervoor, omdat het altijd wel iemand aangaat. We zouden minstens wekelijks iets over gezondheid moeten schrijven.
7 Hoeveel tijd steken we in vooronderzoek? We kunnen niet altijd doen wat we willen zeker nu met een mindere bezetting.
write is correct. Other ways to verify information is by reaching out to your colleagues who have more understanding about the subject you are writing about.
‘I call a researcher. Mostly a researcher that contributed to the research or otherwise you can find someone that knows much about the subject.’9
Contradicting disseminative journalism
A few responses contradicted the role of disseminative journalism. As mentioned in the introduction, disseminative articles include the who, what, when and where, but no further context and reasons for the study are provided (Weaver, et al., 2007). However, journalists indicated that it is also can be important to provide context.
‘When there is much debate around a subject, it is important to nuance and to include different viewpoints.’10
The disseminative role is characterized by distributing information in a fast way. However, some editors of De Kennis van Nu also indicated that they also perform actions that are more time consuming.
‘Calling an expert is often the fastest way to obtain information. However, I also often sort things out for myself, although this is more time consuming.’11
Interpretative journalism
ContextualizingProviding more than factual information is the key characteristic of an interpretative journalist. Almost all the editors mentioned the importance of providing context. This can be done by including information about several studies and calling various experts. According to one journalist, contextualizing is especially important when dealing with influential subject like health.
‘Health, and especially when it is about disease, is a sensitive subject with often no
conclusive answer. Therefore, you need to investigate intensively and not only give one side of the story.’12
However, providing context takes time. Therefore, when there is a time constriction, the editors are not always able to fulfil this need.
‘If I have enough time, I prefer to call multiple experts.’13
9 Ik bel een onderzoeker. Meestal is er een onderzoeker verbonden aan het artikel of je kan wel iemand vinden die er verstand van heeft. En soms bel ik die persoon en kan je je artikel sturen of er geen onjuistheden in staan.
10 Zembla had een uitzending over zebravisjes zonder enige nuance. 'Als er veel discussie is rond een
onderwerp dan is het belangrijk om de nuance aan te brengen en iets van verschillende kanten te belichten.'
11 Een expert bellen is vaak het snelst. Toch zoek ik vaak zelf dingen uit, maar dat kost wel veel tijd.
12 Gezondheid en vooral als het over ziektes gaat zijn gevoelige onderwerpen met vaak geen definitief
antwoord. Daarom moet je het heel goed uitzoeken en niet maar een kant van het verhaal belichten.
Adversarial journalism
ScepticismAmong the web editorial team there was some dissension whether it is the responsibility of a health journalist to be sceptic towards public officials. Some journalists indicated that they look for conflicts of interests. However, others feel that being sceptical is not their main priority. This is best illustrated by a conversation between a journalist and his editor in chief.
A: ‘I do not want to write an article about this gluten study, because it is funded by a company that could profit from the outcomes.’14
B: ‘Gluten is a subject that gets a lot of hits, so you should write about it.’15
Faith in scientific institutions
Although some journalists mentioned that it is important to be sceptic, most editors indicated that they actually trust scientists, especially when they work for universities.
‘When someone holds a PhD or is a professor, then other smart people indicated that this person is trustworthy. So, then I will also trust this researcher.’16
‘I trust someone when he works for a university.’
This is contradictory to the adversarial role. Hence, being sceptic is not a responsibility that most editors of De Kennis van Nu identify with.
Mobilizing journalism
Stimulating your readers to express their opinion is not a responsibility within De Kennis van Nu.
The possibility to comment is usually switched of unless you specifically ask for a response in your article.17
This indicates that editors of De Kennis van Nu usually does not motivate its audience to express their opinions on the website. However, all articles are also posted on Twitter and Facebook, so they if a reader feels the need to comment this can be done by social media.
14 Er is een nieuw onderzoek over gluten waarin staat dat eten zonder gluten helemaal niet minder voedingsstoffen heeft. Maar het is gesponsord door een bedrijf dat daar profijt van heeft. Daarom wil J1 het niet doen.
15 Gluten scoort altijd goed en doe het daarom wel.
16 Als hij een PhD heeft of een professor hebben andere slimme mensen gezegd dat hij te vertrouwen is.
17 De mogelijkheid tot reactie wordt alleen aangezet als we in een stuk specifiek vragen om reactie. Dat kan wel belangrijk zijn, maar wij doen dat niet’. Mensen kunnen reageren via facebook en we hebben weleens negatieve dingen gehad in de commentaar sectie.
Actions in health communication
In this paragraph, it will be described what actions and decisions are related to the role conceptions of the editors. From the inductive coding approach, the following procedures arose: subject selection, verifying information, deciding on content and way of writing. Subject selection
As mentioned before, multiple editors of De Kennis van Nu indicated that it is important to reach a wide audience. This is important, because De Kennis van Nu needs to attain its target of 100.000 visitors by the end of this year. By writing about subjects that concern many people the editors try to achieve this goal.
‘Always ask yourself for how many people the subject could be interesting.’18
‘The core of science journalism is that you relate it to people themselves. This is especially the case with health and climate.’
Although health is a popular subject among journalists, there are some considerations. The subject should not be too specialized or too technical. This is because they feel that this would scare of their public, but also because many of the editors do not have a background in beta studies. Hence, they feel that they cannot judge whether something is relevant.
‘I would never write about a novel molecule that has something to do with diabetes, since that is way too specific. Only when it has a major impact of course. But the problem is that we have nobody at the editorial office who can judge this. We need someone like that.’19
The editors also do not like to write about research that is done in mice. During the meetings that everyone would present their ideas, subjects that involved mice were often discarded.
‘Like a study about a new substance that is linked to depression in mice. I would never write about that. It is only one study and it can work very differently in rats or human beings.’20
Verifying information
Critical
After deciding on the subject, the editors read the study and verify the information that is presented. Editors of De Kennis van Nu have multiple ways to make sure that the
18 Het is ook afwegen wat er verder voor aanbod is. Voor hoeveel mensen is dit interessant? Met medisch is het soms wel en soms niet.
19 Ik zou alleen nooit schrijven over een nieuw stofje bij diabetes ofzo, want dat is veel te specifiek. Alleen als dat stofje grote impact heeft natuurlijk. Maar het probleem is dat wij niemand of de redactie hebben die dat kan beoordelen. Zo iemand hebben wij eigenlijk wel nodig.
20 Ik zo nooit over gezondheid schrijven als het maar een studie is. Ik ben er niet bewust mee bezig, maar in de praktijk doe ik dat wel. Zoals die studie over dat er een nieuw stofje is bij depressie gevonden bij muizen. Dat zou ik nooit publiceren. Dat is maar een studie. Op ratten en mensen kan het heel anders werken.
information in their article is correct. First of all, as a science journalist you should be critical.
‘You always should look at a study critically. For example, number of participants etc.’21 ‘
However, one of the journalists mentioned that as a science journalist you can also not be an expert in everything.
Find an expert
Another step in verifying your information referred to by several journalists, is discussing it with you colleagues. However, finding an expert is by far the most mentioned way to verify information by the science journalists. This can be someone who contributed to the study or someone else in the field.
‘I call an independent researcher to ask whether the study is relevant and not a way to seek attention.’
‘We should call scientists in order to check and verify statistics in an article.’ ‘Sometimes you can send your article to the researcher to verify that there are no inaccuracies.’
These responses indicate that the editors heavily rely on experts in confirming that a study has been executed correctly. Furthermore, when an editor wrote an article they will often send it to an expert before publishing. In this way, they verify their interpretations and make sure that what they publish on the website is accurate.
Deciding on content
When you have gathered all your information, the next step in producing an article is deciding which information should be included. As mentioned before, several journalists mentioned that it can be important to consider various viewpoints.22 However, there was
some disagreement on whether you should include various studies in one article. In an article that I wrote about addiction, I added some information about a brain area that could explain why it is so hard to rehabilitate. With this I wanted to provide some more context. However, the editor correcting the article told me that the addition should be left out.23
Another journalist thought it was a good addition.24 This example illustrates that some
editors feel that it is good to include previous information, but others feel it is an
21 Je moet zelf wel ook altijd kritisch kijken naar de studie, bijvoorbeeld aantal proefpersoenen etc. 22 Zembla had een uitzending over zebravisjes zonder enige nuance. 'Als er veel discussie is rond een onderwerp dan is het belangrijk om de nuance aan te brengen en iets van verschillende kanten te belichten.'
23 Nog steeds over coke en ijzerophoping. Ik heb er een stuk bijgedaan over dat de putamen ook vergroot is bij cocaïnegebruikers om wat meer context te geven en aan te geven wat al bekend is. Zij zegt dat dat ook eruit kan, omdat het niet over het specifieke stuk gaat.
unnecessary addition. Hence, some could decide to only focus on the information that is described in one study. Others decide to add more context.
Writing
The last procedure is writing the popular scientific article for the website. When it comes to writing journalists of De Kennis van Nu write nuanced and from someone else’s perspective. In this way, you avoid creating the impression that you are the expert.
‘Always write from the researcher’s perspective, because that is the person who has knowledge about the subject.25
‘Do not give health advice. Sometimes it just flows out of you pen, but nuance is important.
For example, the research suggests that… or something alike.’26
These comments are in line with the results that the editors of De Kennis van Nu have faith in researchers (also see paragraph about adversarial journalism). Once I had concerns about a study, but the editor in chief indicated that I should not include these reservations in my article. She told me that I should consult an independent expert to verify my
considerations.27 This could indicate that the editors have more faith in the judgments of
researchers than in their own reasoning.
View of the public
For the last sub-question ‘How do editors of De Kennis van Nu view their public?’ all the responses that contained the public were considered. There were two categories that came forward; readers’ needs and responsibility.
Readers’ needs
Under the concept of readers’ needs, editors of De Kennis van Nu state what they feel their readers want when reading about health. What comes forward from the data is that editors of De Kennis van Nu believe that their public wants to read about things that concerns themselves and health is a subject that many people relate to.
‘We have a special about drugs against depression, but there has not been much research about this, but we still do something with it. A lot of people find this interesting. Depression is a big problem with no good medications. So, this concerns many people.28
25 Altijd vanuit de onderzoeker schrijven, want die hebben er verstand van.
26 Geef geen gezondheidsadvies. Soms vloeit het zo uit je pen, maar je moet het genuanceerd houden. Dus dingen als Dit onderzoek suggereert dat… of iets dergelijks.
27 Als je je bedenkingen hebt bij dit onderzoek zou ik een expert bellen, want dat kan je diegene quoten in je
artikel.
28 Daar ben ik het niet helemaal mee eens. We hebben nu een special over drugs tegen depressie. Daar is nog niet heel veel onderzoek naar geweest, maar we doen daar toch wat mee. Veel mensen vinden dit interessant. Depressie is een groot probleem en er zijn geen goede medicijnen voor. Dit gaat dus veel mensen aan.
