THE SCIENCE-MEDIA INTERACTION IN HEALTH CARE
Opinions of scientists and science journalists on participation in science communication activities.
Maaike M. Roefs
Master thesis Communication Studies University of Twente
December 2011
THE SCIENCE-MEDIA INTERACTION IN HEALTH CARE
Opinions of scientists and science journalists on participation in science communication activities.
Author: Maaike M. Roefs
Student number: s0078085
Study: Master Communication Studies
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences
University of Twente (UT)
Research performed at: Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC)
Directorate of Communication
Graduation committee: dr. A.M. Dijkstra
dr. C.H.C. Drossaert
External supervisors LUMC: drs. M.T. van ‘t Oever
drs. O.I. Gort
Date: December 19th, 2011
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………4
SAMENVATTING………...5
1. BACKGROUND………...6
2. INTRODUCTION……….………...7
2.1 Science communication 7
2.2 Scientist-media interaction 8
2.3 Theory of planned behavior 10
2.4 Aim 12
3. METHODS………13
3.1 Respondents 13
3.2 Instrument 13
3.3 Analysis 14
4. RESULTS……….. …………...15
4.1 Sample characteristics 15
4.2 Behavior 16
4.3 Attitude 17
4.4 Subjective norm 21
4.5 Perceived control 26
4.6 Mediators 29
5. DISCUSSION………...32
5.1 Main conclusions 32
5.2 Recommendations 36
5.3 Limitations 36
6. REFERENCES………...38
7. APPENDICES………...…………...40
7.1 Interview scheme scientist 40
7.2 Interview scheme journalist 44
ABSTRACT
Science communication is important for a number of reasons. For example, it enhances awareness, understanding and enjoyment among the public. However, the science- media interaction is often thought to be difficult and barriers are experienced. Research has been performed to investigate the relationship between science and the media, but often lacks an underlying theoretical framework and is limited to the scientists’
perspective only. A more precise understanding of the complex science-media interaction is needed. In this study salient beliefs about participation in science communication activities are explored, for both journalists and scientists, using the theory of planned behavior.
Twenty-one scientists and fourteen science journalists were selected and interviewed. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the behavioral, normative and control beliefs regarding participation in science communication activities.
In addition, respondents were asked about their previous experiences and behavior.
Respondents’ beliefs were first arranged according to the theory of planned behavior and then analyzed and arranged into subthemes using an inductive process.
Attitude and social norm appeared to be more relevant factors for scientists than they were for journalists. Attitudes were mainly positive for both groups, but the scientists’ fear for possible disadvantages is an important barrier. The peer pressure and criticism of colleagues were important normative beliefs for the scientists. Control beliefs regarding science communication were merely practical issues for the journalists, of which time pressure appeared to be the most important. Mediators are therefore often neglected by journalists, whereas scientists are often not aware of the activities and possible services of mediators.
Enhancing the mutual understanding between the scientists and journalists may improve the science-media interaction. Scientists should be informed about how the journalists work and how news is made, and may benefit from a media training.
Journalists, on the other hand, should be more aware and understanding about the hesitation and reluctance experienced by the scientists. Mediators can play an important role in improving this mutual understanding. Future quantitative studies are needed to further explore the beliefs regarding the science-media interaction.
SAMENVATTING
Wetenschapscommunicatie is belangrijk om een aantal redenen; het vergroot bijvoorbeeld bewustwording, begrip en plezier over wetenschap bij het publiek. De wetenschap-media interactie wordt echter als moeilijk beschouwd, deelnemers ervaren barrières. Hoewel onderzoeken zijn verricht naar de wetenschap-media interactie, richtten deze zich vaak enkel op de perceptie van de wetenschapper en wordt geen gebruik gemaakt van een theoretisch kader. Een preciezer beeld van de relatie tussen wetenschappers en journalisten en de factoren die daarin een rol spelen is nodig. Het doel van deze studie is daarom om de overtuigingen en meningen over wetenschapscommunicatie van zowel wetenschappers als journalisten te verkennen.
Hierbij wordt gebruik gemaakt van de theorie van gepland gedrag.
Eenentwintig wetenschappers en veertien journalisten zijn geselecteerd en geïnterviewd. Door middel van semigestructureerde interviews werden de opvattingen over gedrag, sociale norm en controle met betrekking tot deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie uitgevraagd. Daarnaast werd de respondenten gevraagd over hun ervaringen en gedrag. Uitkomsten werden gerangschikt met behulp van de theorie van gepland gedrag en vervolgens gegroepeerd in subthema’s en geanalyseerd.
Overtuigingen over gedrag en sociale norm bleken meer belangrijk voor
wetenschappers dan voor journalisten. De attitudes ten opzichte van deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie waren positief voor beide groepen. Echter, de vrees van wetenschappers voor mogelijke nadelen vormt een belangrijke barrière. Druk vanuit de omgeving en kritiek van collega-wetenschappers spelen hierin een rol. Overtuigingen over de controle bestonden bij journalisten voornamelijk uit praktische kwesties, met name tijdsdruk wordt als een belangrijke barrière ervaren. Mediatoren worden daarom vaak niet geraadpleegd. Wetenschappers waren daarentegen vaak niet voldoende op de hoogte van de activiteiten en diensten die mediatoren hen kunnen bieden.
Het vergroten van het wederzijds begrip tussen wetenschappers en journalisten kan de wetenschap-media interactie verbeteren. Wetenschappers moeten op de hoogte zijn hoe de media werken en hoe nieuws wordt gemaakt. Journalisten zouden meer begrip moeten hebben voor de twijfels en reserves van wetenschappers. Mediatoren kunnen een belangrijke rol spelen in het verbeteren van deze relatie. Kwantitatief onderzoek is nodig om de overtuigingen over wetenschap-media interactie verder te verkennen.
1. BACKGROUND
Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) is one of the eight university medical centers in The Netherlands and employs almost 7000 people. The LUMC has five core activities:
patient care, scientific research, education, study programs and continuing education;
and aims for the top in performing its core tasks. The LUMC strives to offer high quality in medical technology and care in attention for its patients, over 100.000 patients visit the hospital per year. The hospital works in close cooperation with general hospitals in the Leiden area and performs an important public task in innovating health care and testing new medical technologies. One of the ambitions of the LUMC as stated in the Strategic Plan 2009-2013 (“Strategisch Plan”, 2009, p. 10) reads ‘Answering public questions by discoveries’ (‘Met ontdekkingen maatschappelijke vragen beantwoorden’).
This implies public engagement and public understanding of science is an important aim.
The LUMC wishes to contribute to and participate in the public debate.
The Directorate Communication is involved in both the internal and external communication of the LUMC, and is therefore an important actor in fulfilling this ambition.
Their task, among others, is to handle and organize press contacts and to mediate between scientists and (science) journalists. The LUMC’s communication specialists thus play an important role in mediating in the science-media interaction.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors influencing this relationship between science and the media, from both the scientists’ and science journalists’
perspective, which may be useful in improving science communication in general and within the organization.
In this report, the current literature and theoretical framework will be explored first, after which the used theory is elaborated on and the research questions are defined. Subsequently, the methodology of this study is explained and the results are presented. Finally, the findings of this study are discussed and recommendations for future research and the practice are proposed.
2. INTRODUCTION
This chapter gives an overview of the recent literature and performed research within the spectrum of this study. The current views on science communication and the science- media interaction are discussed. The theory of planned behavior is used as the underlying theoretical framework of this study and will be explained in this chapter. The aims of this research are defined in the final paragraph.
2.1 Science communication
Science communication can 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, interest, opinion-forming and understanding. Science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators and other members of the general public, either peer-to-peer or between groups’ (Burns, O’Connor & Stocklmayer, 2003). It is important that scientists are involved in science communication and public engagement activities for a number of reasons. First, science plays a key role in a number of issues facing global society, e.g. terrorism, sustainable development and health, and is often financed through public funds. Scientists are therefore obliged to share their findings. Second, there may be a discrepancy between the way that the media portrays science and the actual scientific findings. Third, science communication might change public’s perception of scientists and their activities and may lead to a more supportive public. Finally, science communication can be enjoyable for those who take part and may enrich peoples’ lives (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). In addition, public profile and favorable images are important to sustain public goodwill that may translate into higher citation counts and into funding for future research, which is not only important for the scientists themselves, but also for their organizations or research institutions (Bauer, Allum & Miller, 2007). Moreover, Willems (2003) notes that communication between fellow professionals often takes place through the mass media.
Research on science communication and the public understanding of science is a relatively new and expanding research area. Paradigms of research regarding the public understanding of science are widely debated and changed over the past decades (Bauer et al., 2007). Whereas research previously focused on the deficits in public scientific literacy and knowledge (Miller, 1992), focus has shifted towards trust and credibility issues between science and society (Bauer et al., 2007) and scientists’
participation in a public debate and dialogue is becoming more important (Royal Society, 2006).
2.2 Science-media interaction
The relationship between scientists and journalists is often considered to be difficult (Willems, 2003), but a recent mail survey among biomedical researchers showed that media contacts of scientists in top R&D countries are more frequent and smooth than previously thought (Peters, Brossard, Cheveigne, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller &
Tsuchida, 2008a). This study of Peters et al. (2008a) showed that 70% of the respondents had interacted with the media in the past 3 years and that 75% rated their interactions as mainly good. Similar results were found in the study of the Royal Society (2006), where 74% of the scientists reported having taken part in at least one science communication or public engagement activity in the past year in the UK. In contrary, Jensen (2005) and Bentley & Kyvik (2011) found that popular publishing is extremely skewed; around 50% of all popular articles were published by only 3 to 5% of all academic staff. In an explanatory article by Peters et al. (2008b), it is noted the motivation of scientists to participate in science communication is high and participation is considered a necessity and duty. Legitimization of their research was mentioned as the major motive to participate in science communication activities (Peters, Brossard, Cheveigne, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller & Tsuchida, 2008b). However, barriers are encountered in the science-media relationship. A quantitative study by The Wellcome Trust (2000) among British scientists found that lack of public knowledge, education and interest in science is regarded the main barrier for improving the public’s understanding of science. Moreover, lack of communication skills, awareness and interest among scientists themselves scientists were mentioned in this study, as well as time and money constraints and lack of support. One in three scientists considered the media to be a barrier. The study by the Royal Society (2006) showed that lack of time was the most important barrier for scientists, followed by perceived risks on their academic career, peer pressure and the idea participation does not bring in funding and is therefore not a high priority activity. Bringing in more money into the department was found to be the top incentive in this research. However, later studies found that time constraints and career recognition did not influence the intention to participate in science communication activities (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007; Jensen, Rouqier, Kreimer and Croissant, 2008).
Although science communication is considered a scientists’ duty (Wolfendale committee, 1995; Peters et al., 2008b), a limited number of studies have been performed focusing on the involvement of scientists and their institutions in science communication (Neresini & Bucchi, 2011), and even less research focused on the journalists’
perspective. In addition, research identifying motivators and barriers to scientists’
participations has been mainly descriptive and carried out without an underlying theoretical framework (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). In a recent study, however, the actual media coverage was related to the motivation in a study based on the theoretical framework of the Influence of Presumed Media Influence (Tsfati, Cohen & Gunther, 2011). This study showed that the scientists’ belief about the influence of media increased their motivation and efforts to obtain media coverage, which was related to the number of actual media appearances. Poliakoff and Webb (2007) used and augmented the theory of planned behavior in which engagement in certain behavior, in this case participation in science communication activities, is predicted by three factors: attitude, subjective norm and perceived control. Poliakoff and Webb (2007) investigated beliefs among 169 scientists from the UK using a questionnaire and found that mainly past behavior, attitude (whether participation was regarded as positive), perceived behavioral control (beliefs whether participation was under their control), and descriptive norms (whether scientists believe their colleagues participate) were important factors in predicting the scientists’ participation in science communication activities. They found other factors, such as money and time constraints, fear, possible career benefits and subjective norm did not significantly influence the intention to engage in science communication activities.
Although the studies performed by Poliakoff and Webb (2007) and Tsfati et al.
(2011) were both carried out using a theoretical framework, they failed to investigate the possible influencing factors using a qualitative approach prior to their quantitative survey.
This may have lead to an incomplete overview of influencing factors and biased questioning. In addition, these studies focused were limited to the scientists’ perspective.
Only if the journalists’ view is included, useful insights in how to improve the scientist- media interaction can be obtained. One research (Waddell, Lomas, Lavis, Abelson, Shepherd, & Bird-Gayson, 2005) focused on a qualitative approach to investigate the journalists’ view on working with researchers, but aimed at policy making in stead of true science communication. They found journalists had difficulties finding scientists willing and able to communicate with public audiences and would like to see more researchers
involved. Research by Kaye et al. (2011) did focus on both health scientists and science journalists and used a qualitative approach to investigate attitudes and barriers in science communication. In this study it is concluded perceived barriers are inadequate or inappropriate skills, negative attitudes and lack of supportive environment by employers and peers. However, they did not base their research on an underlying theoretical framework, used an open-ended semi-structured questionnaire in stead of more in-depth and free-response interviews, and their research was performed under health scientists and journalists in Uganda only.
Press officers, science communicators and PR professionals of the scientists’
organizations play a mediating role in science communication. However, research organizations often have their own interests in participation in science communication, they use it to legitimize their relevance and importance (Peters, 2008). Although these mediators are important actors in science communication and the difference in interest may hamper the science-media interaction, very few studies have focused on their role.
Research by Dunwoody and Ryan (1983) has showed that most scientists have a positive attitude towards mediators, but that these scientists also perceive the mediators in some cases hinder their efforts to increase public understanding. More insight in the current beliefs about mediators is needed, in which also the views of the journalists should be included.
To obtain a more precise understanding of influencing factors in the science- media interaction and overcome important limitations, this study explores both the scientists’ and science journalists’ perspective, using the theory of planned behavior as its underlying framework. In addition, the opinions of scientists and journalists about mediators are investigated.
2.3 Theory of planned behavior
The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is a social-cognition model used to predict human behavior and has been applied in many studies and received widespread support as a model of predicting behavior. A central factor in the theory of planned behavior is the individual’s intention to perform a given behavior, which is a predictor for the actual performance of behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior there are three predictors of intention: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, which are the result of respectively behavioral, normative and control beliefs. Attitudes refer to the individual’s positive or negative evaluation of engaging in a particular behavior
(behavioral beliefs). Subjective norms reflect to beliefs about whether other (groups of) people would approve or disapprove of one engaging in the behavior (normative beliefs).
Perceived behavioral control is similar to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and reflects one’s beliefs about resources, abilities, and opportunities to perform the behavior successfully (control beliefs). Since both scientists and journalists are involved in science communication, for each group participation in science communication activities can be predicted by the intention to participate in this behavior. This intention is in turn influenced by the three defined factors in the theory of planned behavior (Figure 1). In addition, successful performance of the behavior depends not only on the intention, but also on a sufficient level of actual behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). The three constructs are assumed to contribute unequally to the intention in the different groups. For example, journalists might have different beliefs about behavioral control of participation in science communication activities when compared to scientists. In this study we therefore focus on both groups involved in the science-media interaction.
Eliciting salient behavioral, normative and control beliefs is an important first step in gaining a more precise understanding of the science-media interaction.
Attitude
Subjective norm
Perceived control
Attitude
Subjective norm
Perceived control
Scientist Journalist
Participation in science communication
activities
Behavioral beliefs
Control beliefs Normative
beliefs Behavioral
beliefs
Normative beliefs
Control beliefs
Intention to participate
Intention to participate Attitude
Subjective norm
Perceived control
Attitude
Subjective norm
Perceived control
Scientist Journalist
Participation in science communication
activities
Behavioral beliefs
Control beliefs Normative
beliefs Behavioral
beliefs
Normative beliefs
Control beliefs
Intention to participate
Intention to participate
Figure 1 Schematic overview of application of the theory of planned behavior in participation in science communication activities (adapted from Ajzen, 1991). Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are the result of behavioral, normative and control beliefs, and predict intention to participate in science communication activities, for both scientists and journalists. This will in turn predict actual participation in science communication activities. The dotted lines represent actual behavioral control, which might influence the behavior directly.
2.4 Aim
The science-media interaction is often thought to be difficult and barriers are experienced. Previous research often lacks a theoretical framework and focuses on the scientists’ view only. A more precise understanding of the complex science-media interaction is needed. The aim of this study is to explore salient beliefs according to the theory of planned behavior about participation in science communication activities from both the scientists’ and journalists’ perspective by means of interviews. The main research question can thus be defined as follows:
‘Which behavioral, normative and control beliefs influence the science-media interaction, from both the scientists’ and journalists’ perspective?’.
In addition to this main research question, the existing opinions and experiences with mediators and their role within science communication will be explored. A subquestion can therefore be stated:
‘What are the scientists’ and journalists’ opinions on mediators?’
3. METHODS
To find answers on the research questions scientists and journalists were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The respondent groups and used methods are explained in this chapter. Section 3.1 gives insight in the included respondents. In section 3.2 the used instrument is explained and section 3.3 focuses on the performed qualitative data analysis.
3.1 Respondents
A sample of 21 scientists and 14 science journalists were interviewed. Included scientists were all involved in (bio)medical research within the LUMC. Scientists with different levels of scientific experience were included in the sample, ensuring variation.
Also, previous participation in science communication activities was taken into account.
Scientists who are known to be very active (n=5) or not active at all (n=3) in science communication, as indicated by the LUMC’s communication specialists, were asked to participate and included in this study. Other scientists (n=13) were randomly selected from a list of all researchers in the hospital.
Science journalists were contacted via existing contacts of the LUMC (n=6) and via the national society of science journalists (n=8). Science journalists with different levels of experience in the (bio)medical field and writing for different (kinds of) media were included to obtain variation within the respondent group.
All participants were either called or e-mailed and asked if they were indeed involved in biomedical research or science journalism and if they were willing and able to participate. The interviews took place at a location that was convenient for the respondent, but preferably in an office or conference room that ensured some privacy.
3.2 Instrument
All interviews were conducted by the researcher and were estimated to last between 30 to 45 minutes. A semi-structured interview guide was composed according to the guidelines defined by Ajzen (2011) and used to explore the behavioral, normative and control beliefs regarding participation in science communication activities. In addition, respondents were asked about their previous experiences and behavior and their opinions about mediators. Comparable guides were used for the interviews with scientists and science journalists (Appendix 7.1 and 7.2). To make sure the definitions were understood correctly by the respondents, these were given at the beginning of the
interview. Although the areas of questioning were defined, the interview scheme allowed for probing, flexibility and deeper examination of issues arising during the interview.
Characteristics of the interviews can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of interviews (n=35)
Scientists (n=21) Journalists (n=14) Interview time (minutes)
Mean (± SD) Range
37.5 (± 11.2) 18 - 55
46.9 (± 5.6) 35 - 53
3.3 Analysis
Interviews were digitally recorded with the respondents’ permission and transcribed verbatim. Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis was performed using Atlas.ti 6.2 software. The researcher first read transcribed interviews to get familiarized and then coded and thematically arranged the data according to the constructs of the theory of planned behavior. Subsequently, the data for each construct was grouped into subthemes using an inductive process and analyzed. Relevant fragments, themes and sub themes were discussed with two additional reviewers throughout the process of analysis.
4. RESULTS
In this chapter the results of this study are presented. Section 4.1 gives an overview of the characteristics of the included respondents. Subsequently, section 4.2 focuses on the behavior of the respondents. Section 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 focus on the three constructs of the theory of planned behavior: attitude, subjective norm and perceived control, respectively. Finally, in section 4.6 the role of mediators is presented.
4.1 Sample characteristics
Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the research samples, which consisted of 21 scientists of whom 62% were male, and 14 journalists of whom 43% were male. The scientific experience of scientists is depicted in Table 2, as well as the professional experience of the science journalists. Scientific and professional experience is defined as the number of years involved in research for scientists and number of years involved in science journalism, respectively.
Table 2: Characteristics of research sample (n=35)
Scientists (n=21) Journalists (n=14) Sex (n)
Male Female
13 8
(62%) (38%)
7 8
(43%) (57%) Years of experience (n)
< 5 5 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30
> 30
4 1 4 8 4
(19%) (5%) (19%) (38%) (19%)
2 5 5 1 1
(14%) (36%) (36%) (7%) (7%)
Table 3: Frequency of participation in science communication activities by scientists (n=21)
Never
< 1x per year
> 1x per year
> 1x per month
> 1x per week
n 5 6 6 2 2
% (24%) (28%) (28%) (10%) (10%)
4.2 Behavior
Scientists were asked about their previous experiences with science communication and the frequency of their participation in science communication activities. Frequency of participation in science communication activities was divided into five categories, ranging
from no previous participation to more than once a week and is shown in Table 3. This table showed more than half of the respondents never participated in science communication or have very little experience. When asked about ways in which scientists were contacted by journalists, most scientists indicated that the journalists usually contacted them directly by phone or e-mail, or sometimes they get in touch with a science journalist via the hospital’s communication department. Few indicated they contacted journalists themselves when they thought they had an interesting story, these scientists were experienced in science communication activities and often have science journalists within their professional network. Some others thought it was the communication specialists’ role to get in touch with the journalist when they want to bring news. Participation in written press was the most common for the respondents, although some were also experienced in giving television or radio interviews and speaking about science to the lay public at events (e.g. Science Café’s).
Journalists were asked what steps they usually take when reporting about science. An overview of the steps within this process can be found in Table 4. Their choice on the subject is sometimes already defined by the publisher, but often depends on the journalists’ personal interests as well as the newsworthiness of the subject. The definition of this ‘newsworthiness’ is ambiguous, but science journalists mentioned factors such as relevance for the public, previous coverage, knowledge about the
Table 4: Steps undertaken by science journalists in science journalism 1. Deciding what to write about
Subject already defined by publisher Newsworthiness
Personal interest of journalist Opinion of expert about research 2. Finding a scientist to interview
Already defined by publisher Included in press release
Scientific search
Google search
Personal network
3. Contacting the scientist
Directly via e-mail or phone
Indirectly via communication department 4. Interviewing and writing
Thorough preparation on subject Interview face-to-face or via telephone
Give scientist the opportunity to check the result
subject and novelty of the news play a role in this process. One journalist mentioned an independent expert is always asked to comment on the quality of the research prior to start working on the article. When the subject is defined, the journalist searches for scientists to interview about the subject. Sometimes this scientist is already found by the publisher, or the name and contact details of the scientist are readily included in the press release. However, often the science journalists seek an independent expert for advice and a reaction on the subject. Besides personal network being a good source, they use Google and scientific searches to find a matching expert, who will then be contacted either directly or via the communication department of the institute. The journalists then take their time to thoroughly prepare the interview, by reading other news items and scientific publications on the subject. Almost all journalists let the scientists read the article they wrote before publishing to ensure correctness.
4.3 Attitude
Behavioral beliefs were distinguished between advantages and disadvantages. Both categories could be subdivided into consequences for the scientist, the research field and the public. In addition, respondents commented on the quality of media coverage of science, which will be presented in the first paragraph.
Opinions about the media coverage of science
Most respondents noted the quality of science journalism is very variable and differs strongly between and within different media. Journalists criticized the way of journalism in which news items are directly copy-pasted from press releases and are not checked before publishing. A journalist elaborated on this:
“Je hebt gewoon de echte flutjournalistiek, in de internethoek zal ik maar zeggen.
En dat gaat dan via de Spits en de Metro, dat zit er heel dicht tegenaan, gaat het naar de iets serieuzere kranten en dan naar de Volkskrant en de NRC waar het steeds beter wordt. … Die onderkant van het segment, dat is echt bagger, er zit geen enkele zeef op er wordt niks gecontroleerd. Dat is gewoon copy-paste. Het staat ineens op honderdduizend sites tegelijk. En bij de gewone kranten hebben ze ten minste nog een paar journalistieke basisregels die ze hanteren:
controleren, verifiëren, en extra commentaar erbij.” (Journalist)
Journalists stressed the fact that a science journalist should always be very critical and they all hope to contribute to correct and high-quality science journalism.
Although scientists appreciated the effort that is being made to bring science to the public and they believed some science journalists do their work really well, they also mentioned many shortcomings. They think it often lacks nuance and is sensationalized.
Moreover, they believed it is frequently incomplete and misunderstood and therefore poor in quality. In addition, used sources are sometimes unclear or unavailable and felt that coverage might be biased. One scientist expressed his doubts regarding science communication:
“Dat [science communication] wat op mijn eigen vakgebied is, denk je van: poeh, wat zit het er vaak fors naast. En dat maakt je dus heel erg twijfelachtig over de andere dingen die je leest, wat daar nu wel de waarheid van is.” (Scientist)
To satisfy their own interests, scientists mentioned they would like to have more insight in the exact results and the used methods of the particular research.
Advantages
Most advantages were mentioned by both the scientists and journalists, although small differences in perceived advantages do exist. All advantages are listed in Table 5.
Journalists mentioned the enjoyment by the public more often, whereas the scientists seemed to primarily focus on the advantages for the research field and themselves. Most respondents thought that by participating in science communication activities the scientists’ name will become well known, which might be an advantage for obtaining grants or promotion. However, some respondents of both groups thought it would not have an effect, and a few mentioned this should not be an advantage in their opinion.
They believed that researchers should be evaluated by their scientific work and not based on their participation in science communication. Other mentioned advantages for the scientists include influencing policy making, enjoyment and improving the scientists’
acknowledgement and critical reflection of own work. Advantages for the research field include enhancing attention and goodwill, informing colleagues about the research which leads to more knowledge and might also result in new ideas or collaborations that will expedite the scientific process, and increasing financial support, either by grants from the government or private funding from the public. Sharing knowledge was considered the main advantage for the public. When the lay public is informed about scientific findings it is thought they will be able to make valid decisions regarding their own health and behavior, they will have a better understanding of the scientific process in general and more respect for patients and its diseases. In addition, when the public is correctly
informed, this might also reduce anxiety for certain new techniques or products and taboos can be overcome. Enjoyment of the public is an important advantage as well, which can result in the recruitment of students and future scientists.
Table 5: Advantages of participation in science communication activities Advantages for the scientist
Influencing policy making “Als jij goed bent in het duidelijk maken op allerlei niveaus wat op dit moment het soort vraagstellingen is wat er speelt, wat je aan kan pakken en waar muziek in zit, en wat ook maatschappelijk rendement heeft. Dus de brug slaan tussen wetenschap en maatschappij, dan is het ook makkelijker om de besluiten zodanig te krijgen dat er af en toe eens een call for proposals is waar je op in kan spelen.” (Scientist)
Enhancing critical reflection of own work
Het kan je carrière beïnvloeden door het feit dat jij beter wordt in je vakgebied. Dat is een heel onderschat concept, maar Einstein zei ooit dat je iets niet begrijpt als je het niet aan je oma kan uitleggen. Juist door met leken te communiceren over wat je nou aan het doen bent, kom je, kan je je eigen vakgebied scherper krijgen. (Journalist)
Acknowledgement of work
“En verder denk ik gewoon, dat is natuurlijk met heel veel andere beroepen ook, is het gewoon ook heel erg prettig als mensen begrijpen wat je doet.” (Scientist)
Increasing chances for grants
“Als ik iets interessants zou vinden en daar bijvoorbeeld een artikel over schrijf, dan is het ook goed voor mij natuurlijk. Omdat mijn onderzoek dan in de interesse komt, en daardoor.. misschien kan ik meer financiële steun krijgen om in het onderzoek verder te gaan.” (Scientist)
Improving reputation “De universiteit vindt dat aantrekkelijk, iedereen denkt even aan je als er gedacht moet worden over mensen die in commissies moeten, als mensen moeten beoordelen of je een project wel of niet krijgt, als je werk beoordeeld moet worden door andere wetenschappers.” (Scientist) Enjoyment “Ik vind het leuk om dingen uit te leggen, als het een ingewikkeld
onderwerp is vind ik het leuk om te doen. (Scientist)
No advantages “Nou, ik denk niet zozeer in positieve zin. Want ik denk dat als jij ergens voor een baan solliciteert er toch vooral naar je wetenschappelijke publicaties wordt gekeken en misschien niet zozeer of in mindere mate naar je wetenschapscommunicatie.” (Scientist)
Advantages for the research field Getting attention for
research
“Het is een manier om goodwill te kweken voor de onderzoekslijn, het vakgebied. Dat is ook een beetje de functie van hoogleraren van een vakgebied, dat je met elkaar probeert het vakgebied een goede
uitstraling te geven. Ja, ik wil de term marketing niet in de mond nemen, maar je kan wel zien dat mensen daar heel goed in zijn, en dat helpt ze wel.” (Scientist)
Increasing financial support
“En ik vind ook dat mensen enthousiast moeten worden voor
wetenschap. Misschien dat particulieren er dan meer geld in stoppen, daar is het ook belangrijk voor.” (Scientist)
Informing colleagues “Meestal worden die populaire wetenschappelijke artikelen toch wel vaak met een dwars oog ook door andere artsen ook doorgelezen. Want je krijgt ook mensen met vragen op je spreekuur.” (Scientist)
Advantages for the public
Sharing knowledge “Het is toch belangrijk om de mensen te laten weten wat er allemaal speelt in de wetenschap en steeds meer kennis te vergaren. Om mensen voor te lichten. Dat is denk ik wel belangrijk.” (Scientist)
- Enabling
behavioral change
“Als je mensen niet vertelt dat roken ongezond is of overgewicht dan verandert er ook niks.” (Scientist)
- Understanding of diseases and
“Omdat hoofdpijn is eigenlijk, is een beetje een ondergeschoven kindje en veel patiënten met hoofdpijn die worden vaak bekeken als
patients aanstellers, en ik denk dat die enorme aandacht aan de
wetenschappelijk basis van het onderzoek doen naar hoofdpijn enorm heeft bijgedragen aan een betere waardering voor de ziekte.” (Scientist) - Understanding of
scientific process
“Ja, algemene mening is denk ik: al die verstrooide professors die in een ivoren toren zitten. Ik denk dat het vaak een negatieve beeld is, een beetje vaag: wat doen ze, waarmee zijn ze bezig? Niet helemaal een goed positief beeld volgens mij. En dat is natuurlijk ook belangrijk om over te communiceren, en daarmee ook te laten zien van hoe ziet het proces van onderzoek eruit. En daarmee begrijpen mensen ook het en de essentie van het onderzoek.” (Scientist)
- Reducing anxiety Als je kijkt naar de rellen rond de vaccinaties verleden jaar bijvoorbeeld ..
Die angsten die zijn niet het gevolg van wetenschapscommunicatie, maar die kun je wel bestrijden met wetenschapscommunicatie.”
(Journalist)
Enjoyment “En daarnaast is wetenschap, dat is het eerste wat ik zei, is gewoon leuk en interessant.” (Journalist)
Disadvantages
All mentioned disadvantages are summarized in Table 6. The most important disadvantage that scientists mentioned is loss in credibility, trust and status, which will lead to reputation damage and affects one’s career. Thoughts about the severity of this reputation loss differed between respondents. Whereas some believed it will destroy ones career, others thought it will be a temporary effect and can be overcome. Another disadvantage for the scientist is the fact that information about the research may be used by competing research groups to their benefit, although most respondents stressed the fact that this rarely happens, since research findings are generally communicated to the public once they are already published in a peer-reviewed journal. A disadvantage for the research field in general is the perception it can be shown in a bad light, which might harm financial and public support of the research.
Scientists believed sensationalism is an important hindering factor and can lead to the spreading of incorrect information and may induce anxiety and false hope among the public. Due to the uncertainty of science in general, discussions among scientists in the public domain and the excess of information people can find on for example the internet, the public might get confused and uncertain about what and who to believe.
A remarkable difference was found between the behavioral beliefs regarding disadvantages of scientists and journalists. Whereas most scientists immediately answered the question “What disadvantages do you think science communication has?”
with several negative factors, journalists were more reserved and considered disadvantages only to be present when science communication goes wrong. Some
scientists are therefore reluctant to participate, mainly because of the possible disadvantages they foresee for their own reputation. However, most of them do see the importance of science communication for the public and are willing to participate when asked. Some scientists and most journalists even consider it to be the scientists’ duty, since their research is funded by public money.
Table 6: Disadvantages of participation in science communication activities Disadvantages for the scientist
Giving information to other groups
“Het is natuurlijk de grens, wat communiceer je wel naar buiten en wat niet. Want je wil natuurlijk ook niet de concurrentie op ideeën brengen door wat jij naar buiten brengt.” (Scientist)
Reputation loss “Als je te popiejopie op tv verschijnt, word je door je collega’s vaak wat minder neergezet. Dan word je minder serieus genomen als
wetenschapper.” (Scientist) Disadvantages for the research field
Decreasing support “Als mensen de goede dingen van het onderzoek zien, is dat alleen maar gunstig voor ons. Doe je dat verkeerd, dan wordt er alleen maar naar gestreefd om te bezuinigen.” (Scientist)
Disadvantages for the public
Inducing anxiety “Mensen komen op voorhand al met paniek en eigen diagnoses bij een arts, terwijl er misschien helemaal niks aan de hand is.” (Scientist) Providing incorrect
information
“Maar ik denk dat er voldoende voorbeelden te vinden zijn, als je er even over nadenkt, waarbij verkeerde berichtgeving mensen op een totaal verkeerd spoor brengt. En dat kan zelfs tot op hoog niveau zijn. Ik bedoel, ik denk dat er over het klimaat en de effecten van het klimaat, daar wordt soms ook onjuist over gerapporteerd.” (Scientist)
Inducing false hope “En zeker als het gaat om kanker, dan denken mensen gelijk van: oh, je geneest mensen. Nee, ik genees geen mensen, zo ver zijn we niet, dat doen wij niet.” (Scientist)
Increasing uncertainty about what to believe
“Het kan natuurlijk verwarrend zijn … de stukjes in de krant zijn vaak hele kleine beetjes informatie, en al die losse beetjes kan bij elkaar een verwarrend beeld scheppen denk ik wel. (Journalist)
4.4 Subjective norm
Normative beliefs were explored by asking respondents on how others would feel about their participation in science communication. These could be divided into two categories:
perceived behavioral expectations of others and perceived behavioral expectations of scientists and journalists about each other. Normative beliefs appeared to be more relevant for scientists than they were for journalists, since it is the journalists’ job to be involved in science communication activities. In contrary, for the scientist participation in science communication means an addition to his normal tasks as a researcher and demands time and effort. The questions regarding normative beliefs therefore mainly focused on the participation of scientists.
Perceived behavioral expectations of others
Scientists were asked who would encourage or discourage their participation in science communication. It was found that colleagues play a very important, but ambiguous, role.
Some scientists reported that colleagues are important in the process of science communication, they encourage and support each other, for example by discussing the possibilities and messages or referring journalists to a colleague who may be a more suitable expert to interview. At the same time, the criticism of colleagues is an important reason not to participate in science communication. A scientist said:
“Toen ik hier in opleiding ging, hadden we het hoofd van de afdeling, dat was een hele beroemde arts, met een hele ouderwetse kijk op contacten met de media.
En die zei altijd: ‘Een arts komt slechts twee keer in de krant, een keer bij de geboorte en een keer bij het overlijden. En alles wat daartussen zit moet je vermijden.’ Dus die was heel erg tegen, van: je moet niet communiceren in media. … Er is altijd wel een klein clubje mensen die het maar niks vindt en daar dan ook kritisch over is.” (Scientist)
Almost all scientists mentioned they have mixed feelings about other scientists who appear in the media frequently. On the one hand they admire these scientists, because they are both an expert in their field and a good communicator. They therefore think it is logical they are regularly asked to comment. On the other hand, scientists feel those colleagues are idle and presumptuous and overplay their role as an expert:
“…ik kan me voorstellen dat ik weleens denk ik van: nou, je wil wel erg graag in the picture. Maar goed, dat moet je zelf weten, zo gaat het in het leven. … Terwijl je bijvoorbeeld misschien weet van: hij is helemaal niet een topper in zijn vak ofzo. Het is een handige opdonder die graag publiciteit wil en het op die manier voor elkaar krijgt.” (Scientist)
Competition between scientists and jealousy might contribute to these opinions. The balance between these contrary feelings appeared to be extremely delicate and seemed to depend on personal values and the message of the interviewee. This is illustrated by the reaction of a scientist:
“Ik zie soms weleens wetenschappers op televisie waarvan ik denk: nou, dat zou ik niet kunnen op die manier. Zo rustig blijven, en zo duidelijk uitleggen met al die camera’s op je gericht en die hete lampen enzo. Ja, knap. Dus zolang het op een integere manier gebeurt en ik het gevoel heb dat er een boodschap mee over het voetlicht wordt gebracht, waar ik ook wel van denk dat ze belangrijk zijn om over het voetlicht te brengen, dan vind ik dat gewoon prima. Dat er dan toevallig iemand op kickt dat hij zo vaak op het nieuws is, nou, dat zie je in het hele leven, daar lig ik niet wakker van.” (Scientist)
Only some journalists were fully aware of the existing criticism between colleague- scientists and their role within this process. Journalists mentioned it is very useful and valuable to know scientists who are good communicators and always willing to participate, and those are therefore frequently asked to participate. Some journalists believed this does sometimes give a biased view and felt that other scientists or experts should be invited to participate as well. However, convenience and time pressure prevent the journalists from asking other scientists to comment.
Besides encouragement by their colleagues, scientists mentioned superiors, sponsors and patients also encourage their participation. The latter is described by a scientist:
“Ik ben altijd verbaasd hoeveel patiënten me op tv hebben gezien of blaadjes hebben gelezen. Maar die zijn altijd heel positief, die vinden het ook echt heel leuk. Die vinden niks leukers dan hun eigen dokter op tv of in een blaadje te zien.
Die reacties motiveren ook.” (Scientist)
Regarding discouragement, one respondent felt discouraged by the association of medical specialists he is part of:
“De vereniging probeert dat [participation in science communication] heel erg te dempen omdat ze bang zijn voor controversiële zaken. … de vereniging heeft zoiets van: nou, even rustig, voor je het weet wordt er ook weer misgeïnterpreteerd en schiet je in je eigen voet. … Er wordt wel enorm gewezen op de gevaren van praten met de pers, en als je benaderd wordt door de pers en het gaat niet over je eigen wetenschappelijk onderzoek, maar over iets algemeens, dat je het dan terugkoppelt naar de vereniging.” (Scientist)
Besides the groups of people mentioned in this section, mediators such as press officers and spokespeople are important in the science-media interaction and can encourage or discourage both journalists and scientists to participate. Opinions about the role of mediators are given in section 4.6.
Perceived behavioral expectations of each other
Both respondent groups were asked how they thought of each other. When scientists were asked how they think about journalists, almost all of them stressed the fact that they experience large differences between journalists. Although scientists felt that journalists should be both critical and scrupulous and some of them definitely are, the journalists’ intention is not always clear to the scientist. They believed that some
journalists only want to ‘score’ with sensational stories for which they use the scientists.
The quality of the journalist is perceived to correspond with the quality of the medium they are working for. The scientists believed that journalists require the basic skills of journalism: the journalist should know what news is and what topics are relevant and newsworthy, be critical, good in writing, listening and interviewing, able to handle time pressure and deadlines and is ought to always check the facts. Scientists thought some journalists are not aware of their power and the possible impact their journalistic products may have on the public, the research field and the scientists, as illustrated by this scientist:
“Die [journalists] waren er gewoon op uit om te scoren, het [possible new treatment strategy] is natuurlijk een sensationeel verhaal. Niet beseffend dat ze daarmee pak ‘m beet, twee miljoen mensen valse hoop geven, en ze hebben niet de moeite genomen dit factueel na te trekken.” (Scientist)
In addition, some scientists considered journalists to be arrogant, since they want to decide what is important for the lay public in the scientists’ research and they do not listen to feedback from the scientist.
The perception of the journalists about the scientists’ opinion is fairly consistent with the actual opinions scientists have about them. The journalists expected the scientists to make a difference between the quality of journalism and journalists and this is an important factor for the scientists in deciding whether to participate or not.
Moreover, the requirements for good science journalism corresponded between the groups. Journalists believed scientists have different ideas and levels of respect for science journalists. Whereas some journalists believed scientists think science journalism is inferior to science, since science is the most important within the society and science journalists will have difficulties understanding their research, other journalists believed scientists show respect for them and their journalistic work. This difference in opinion is illustrated by the reaction of two different journalists:
“De meeste wetenschappers zijn geneigd te denken dat de wetenschap het mooiste en moeilijkste is wat op aarde bestaat, en dat al het andere, en dus niet alleen journalistiek, maar al het andere onder de wetenschap staat. En dat wetenschappers dus ook alles beter kunnen dan andere mensen.” (Journalist)
“Ik merk vaak dat wetenschappers toch wel inzien dat het [science journalism]
een apart vak is en dat het bepaalde vaardigheden vereist. Daar hebben ze wel oog voor.” (Journalist)
Both scientists and journalists thought science journalism is a specialized field within journalism which requires additional skills and a scientific background. However, respondent groups did not agree on this background. Most scientists believed science journalists should have an academic degree within the field they are writing about, whereas journalists believed enthusiasm and the eagerness to learn about the subjects should be enough. An example of the view of a journalist:
“Je hebt mensen die kunnen heel goed schrijven, maar mooie woorden zonder inhoud, daar heb je heel weinig aan. Dus je moet eigenlijk op je eigen vakgebied wel een beetje weten waar je over praat. En dat kan door je te specialiseren in een onderwerp, maar het kan ook dat je al gespecialiseerd bent door je achtergrond of je studie. Want ik ken ook, er zijn ook zat gewone journalisten die zich uiteindelijk specialiseren tot wetenschapsjournalist, omdat ze vaak over die onderwerpen schrijven. Dat doen er ook een hoop, dat mag ook.” (Journalist)
When journalists were asked about their opinion about scientists, they mentioned they enjoy talking to them, since they are enthusiastic about their work and inspiring to have a conversation with. Although scientists sometimes use jargon which is difficult to understand, if the scientists is enthusiastic it will always work out well, is the opinion of the journalists. Journalists believed most scientists are willing to participate in science communication and are often flattered to be asked. However, some scientists are reserved or reluctant and seem to be frightened or suspicious. Journalists considered this the result of negative previous experiences, as a journalist explained:
“Ik merk wel dat veel wetenschappers heel huiverig zijn wat hun onderzoek straks in de pers gaat doen. Ik spreek ook regelmatig wetenschappers die zeggen: met jou praat ik nog wel, maar met de Telegraaf niet meer.” (Journalist)
The perception of the scientists on the journalists’ opinion tended to be more negative than the actual opinion journalists have. Scientists thought journalists believed they are difficult to talk to, are arrogant and demanding, and have a limited view:
“Ik denk dat ze vinden dat ze te veel in vakjargon praten, dat ze vaak een blik hebben die heel erg beperkt is tot hun eigen onderzoek. Voor de rest, ja, misschien vinden ze sommigen ook wel arrogant.” (Scientist)
In contrary, most journalists believed the scientists do not require specific characteristics to participate. As long as he is willing and able to talk, the journalist will take care of the rest, as this journalist explained:
“Als je als wetenschapsjournalist werkt en je interviewt wetenschappers voor een verhaal, dan denk ik dat het eigenlijk mijn taak is om te zorgen dat het goed komt en niet de zijne. Dus als hij dan niet uit kan leggen of slordig is of wat dan ook, dan zie ik het wel als mijn taak om dat op te lossen. Dus wat mij betreft hoeft hij niet aan bepaalde eisen te voldoen.” (Journalist)
Some scientists believed journalists think very few of all the performed research is interesting enough. Some said the journalists have respect for the difficulty of science and performing research and that they enjoy talking about it. Regarding the media, both groups believed scientists should have some insight in how the media works and how news is made, have a feeling for newsworthy topics and relevance for the public, and most importantly he should be able to translate the scientific findings to a comprehensible story for the lay public.
“Een wetenschapper moet aan iemand kunnen uitleggen die niet op de hoogte is van het onderwerp, op een goede manier waar het om draait. Dat je gewoon tot de kern komt, en in begrijpelijk Nederlands. En niet verzandt in terminologie.”
(Journalist)
4.5 Perceived control
Respondents were asked which factors impede or facilitate their participation in science communication activities. In addition, they were asked if they thought they were able to engage in science communication activities and which barriers they experience or expect. A comparison between the respondent groups showed the control beliefs experienced by journalists were more practical issues than the beliefs of scientists.
Control beliefs of the journalists could therefore be distinguished in beliefs regarding communication with the scientists or science communication in general.
Negative control beliefs
Scientists mentioned several barriers that withhold them from participation in science communication activities. Among these barriers are some that could be categorized under the other two constructs of the theory of planned behavior, attitude and social norm, and are already discussed. These include negative previous experiences with science communication, which might result in anxiety and reluctance to participate.
Negative experiences can be with science communication in general or a specific medium or journalist. Uncertainty about the results of their research is another barrier and may be a reason not to participate, because this might lead to for example false
hope among the public or reputation damage of the scientist. As mentioned before, the scientists fear the criticism of their colleagues, which can be a reason not to participate.
In addition, a controversial subject or a subject with ethical implications is perceived as a barrier.
The barriers that are related to the scientists’ perceived ability to engage in science communication activities are listed in Table 7 and include lack of communication skills, lack of knowledge, unawareness of the possibilities, perceived irrelevance of their research, insufficient support and lack of time. Some scientists perceived a lack of communication skills and felt that they are not able or sufficiently skilled to participate in science communication activities. Others mentioned they are unaware of the possibilities, believe their research is not relevant, or they do not have sufficient knowledge about science communication and, for example, do not know how to achieve media coverage. Some scientists said there is insufficient support to engage in science communication activities or it costs too much of their time.
Table 7: Negative control beliefs of scientists
Lack of communication skills “Dus ik denk dat het nuttig is om dat ook van jezelf te onderkennen, tot op zekere hoogte, met welke soort journalist je het beste communiceert. Mijn neiging tot het maken van lange zinnen met moeilijke woorden erin, dat is voor mij een soort handicap.”
Lack of knowledge “Buiten het ziekenhuis zoeken naar iets, daar heb ik niet zo’n ervaring mee. Ik zou niet weten welke insteek je dan zou moeten nemen, van: we willen iets kwijt.”
Unawareness possibilities “Ik geloof niet dat, althans dat is in mijn geval, maar ik denk voor meerdere kan spreken, dat ze daar niet bewust mee bezig zijn.
Nee. Gewoon met onderzoek bezig zijn en publiceren, maar niet met…”
Irrelevant research topic “Well I guess that might because you think it is not interesting enough for the public, so you don’t think about it.”
Insufficient support “Een factor die het [Participation in science communication activities] moeilijk maakt is vooral dat er geen ondersteuning is.”
Less time for research/patients
“Het kost veel tijd. Het is.. Je wordt er vaak niet, dat is wel anders aan het worden, maar ook al steek je er veel tijd in.. Als ik
beoordeeld wordt hier dan wordt er gekeken hoeveel artikelen heb je gepubliceerd en hoeveel patiënten heb je gezien. Ja, daar zit niet bij hoeveel wetenschapscommunicatie je hebt gedaan.”
Negative control beliefs of the journalists are listed in Table 8, which appeared to be more practical issues compared to the beliefs of scientists. Although these barriers may make the science-media interaction more difficult from the journalists’ perspective, they do not withhold the journalists from participation. The control beliefs are divided into difficulties experienced in the communication with scientists and difficulties in science communication in general. The first category includes lack of communication skills of the scientist and having difficulties with finding the right person to interview, leading the
conversation and handling the wishes of the scientist. The second category includes the difficulty of the subject itself, choosing the subjects to report on, time pressure and the limited space.
Table 8: Negative control beliefs of journalists Communication with scientist
Lack of communication skills scientist
“Soms ook omdat, kijk een wetenschapper is bezig met wetenschap en niet met journalistiek, dus die hebben geen communicatietraining gehad en die weten soms gewoon niet zo goed hoe ze dingen moeten vertellen.”
Finding the right person “Ik denk weleens: ik heb wel iemand, maar misschien is er iemand die er nog wel meer van weet. Dus in die zin weet ik niet altijd of je de juiste persoon hebt. Dat is waar ik daar aan denk, wat lastig kan zijn.”
Leading the conversation “Vaak als je met een wetenschapper afspreekt, dan kom je binnen en gaan ze een soort college geven. Dat is heel lastig in interviews, ik heb dan van tevoren al iets in mijn hoofd, van: die kant wil ik uit.
En dat lukt soms niet omdat ja, zij gaan daar zitten en zij hebben soms al een PowerPoint of zo’n apparaatje en dan gaan ze allemaal… Ze staan mij dan gewoon niet toe om vragen te stellen, ze willen gewoon hun verhaal afdraaien.”
Dealing with wishes of scientist
“Maar ik heb ook weleens dat mensen bij het nalezen van het artikel elk puntkommaatje willen verplaatsen en dan denk ik: nou, dat is niet jouw werk, dat is mijn werk.”
Science communication in general
Difficulty of subject “Onderwerp, soms zijn wetenschappelijke onderwerpen, zoals deeltjesversnellers of kernfusie, gewoon echt moeilijk. Ook te moeilijk voor een journalist om gewoon boven die materie te kunnen staan en te kunnen snappen waar die wetenschapper het in godsnaam over heeft.“
Choosing the subject “Ik snap dat iedereen die een onderzoek doet of promoveert ofzo, daar graag aandacht voor wil, maar het is soms wel moeilijk om het kaf van het koren te scheiden wat dan relevant is.”
Time pressure “Ik denk dat er over wetenschap heel veel onzin wordt geschreven en daar zal ik zelf ook wel aan meedoen. Maar je hebt vaak gewoon niet de tijd om de feiten, zeg maar die wetenschap als feit presenteert, om die echt te checken enzo.”
Limited space “Ja, soms moet je een heleboel, toch net te veel detail opgeven voor de hoeveelheid woorden die je hebt. Dat kan. Soms is er gewoonweg geen plek om genoeg uit te leggen.”
Both groups mentioned lack of communication skills of the scientists as a barrier, and both groups think this barrier may be overcome if the scientists participate in a media training. It is thought this will help the scientist in gaining awareness and experience and teaches them to define the message, which will in turn be advantageous for the journalist as well. A journalist elaborated on this:
“Ik denk dat het heel goed is als een wetenschapper mediatraining krijgt, omdat je dan toch leert hoe het werkt, wat de journalist wel of niet kan. Een journalist heeft zo zijn beperkingen en dat kun je maar beter weten als wetenschapper.
Mensen hebben weleens het idee dat de journalist aankomt en dat hij dan precies de goede vragen stelt en precies weet wat hij moet vragen, en dan naar
buiten loopt en klaar is. Maar eigenlijk heeft zo’n journalist helemaal geen idee vaak, die komt aan en denkt: ‘Nou, ik hoop dat ze een interessant verhaal hebben. Dus het moet vaak ook meer vanuit de wetenschapper zelf komen.’
Sommige wetenschappers weten dat niet en die zijn te afwachtend eigenlijk. Dus het kan heel veel helpen als je gewoon als wetenschapper je eigen verhaal klaar hebt, en weet: dit en dat wil ik vertellen, dat zijn de hoofdpunten, en verder zie ik wel wat er allemaal op me af komt.” (Journalist)
Positive control beliefs
Besides media training, other factors that facilitate participation in science communication that were mentioned by scientists included experience with science communication, support from for example the communication department, having journalists within your personal network and being able to check the result and give feedback before publishing.
Journalists believed the accessibility and willingness of the scientist are important factors that facilitate participation. Other factors included the high amount and continuous supply of possible subjects, the quality of press releases and the journalists’
background. Moreover, the use of embargos is thought to be advantageous, because it reduces the time pressure that journalists experience.
4.6 Mediators
The role of mediators within science communication was explored by asking the respondents about their opinions and experiences with mediators. Opinions of both scientists and journalists are discussed below.
Opinions about mediators in general
Opinions about the role of mediators differed considerably between the two groups of respondents. Most scientists believed the mediators play a very important role, since they have the know-how and can advise and guide scientists throughout the process of participation in science communication. Moreover, they can control the quality of the press releases and can decide which topics may be interesting or newsworthy:
“Zij [the communication department] zijn een beetje een buffer tussen ons [scientists] en de buitenwereld. Ik denk dat zij pro-actief kunnen zijn, dat ze dingen in werking zetten omdat ze dingen horen en zien dat ze denken: nou, dat is heel leuk voor de beeldvorming naar buiten. Aan de andere kant kunnen zij natuurlijk een stuk veiligheid inbouwen, van wat ik al zei: dat mensen te vroeg naar buiten willen komen, of onderwerpen die beladen zijn of waar misschien ethische of juridische kanten aan zitten.” (Scientist)
