Communicating scientific evidence: scientists’, journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty

Abstract

Although uncertainty is inherent in scientific research, it is an often neglected topic in public communication. In this article, we analyze how scientists and journalists think they should communicate about the uncertainty of scientific evidence in public, and whether their real-world communication meets laypersons’ demands and expectations. For scientists and journalists, our analyses are based theoretically on an expectancy-value model and empirically on two representative surveys. Laypersons’ expectations and evaluations are analyzed using qualitative in-depth interviews. Results show that scientists and journalists widely agree that scientific uncertainty should be pointed out in their communication. Nonetheless, while scientists show a clear inclination toward the media and hope that uncertainties will not be dramatized or misused, journalists on the other hand have a strong audience orientation and hope to stimulate critical reflection on scientific findings. For audiences, however, media coverage about scientific uncertainty is of less interest. They clearly expect fact-oriented information on the use of technology in everyday life.

Scientific Uncertainty in the Press: How Newspapers Describe Initial Biomedical Findings

“…Scientific uncertainty in the media has been the subject of many publications (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1999;Lehmkuhl & Peters, 2016;Maier et al, 2016;Peters & Dunwoody, 2016). These analyses have focused on the uncertainty related to controversial studies (Friedman et al, 1999;Nelkin, 1995), the conflicting results (Stocking & Holstein, 2009), and the risks associated with new technologies (Dudo, Dunwoody, & Scheufele, 2011;Kitzinger & Reilly, 1997;Lehmkuhl & Peters, 2016;Ruhrmann, Guenther, Kessler, & Milde, 2015).…”

The takeover of science communication: how science lost its leading role in the public discourse on carbon capture and storage research in daily newspapers in Germany

“…In Germany, four stakeholders can be found within the area of CCS: (1) research institutions (including universities); (2) energy providers such as Vattenfall, E.ON, RWE, EnBW, and others; (3) political bodies; and (4) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) -such as the Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Greenpeace -and local interest groups (IGs). All stakeholders have individual aims and goals when they become engaged in communicating about CCS, and all take part in the competition for publicity (Malone et al, 2009). Energy providers and political bodies at the national and EU level have tried to promote CCS as a transitional option to minimize the effects of climate change through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions (BMBF, 2007;Fischer et al, 2010;Krüger, 2015).…”

“…Taking a closer look at the stakeholder group of NGOs, some (e.g. WWF, 2010) support research into and the development of CCS as a transitional measure that will allow time for better and more efficient measures (Malone et al, 2009). Within this setting, the field of communication science needs to ask whether there are dominant actors in the communication of CCS.…”

Conflicting Evidence or Conflicting Opinions? Two-Sided Expert Discussions Contribute to Experts’ Trustworthiness

“…Experts do not merely have a responsibility to demonstrate expertise. They also have to handle contradictory science-based evidence in an appropriate and meaningful manner by taking a cooperative stance toward their communication partner (Dresp-Langley, 2009; Maier et al, 2016). When it comes to the integration of conflicting information in expert discussions by attending to both pro and contra arguments, the “what” is said and the “how” it is said are intertwined closely.…”

“…In this context, experts are not merely responsible for providing their expertise on the topic but also for handling the scientific discourse in an adequate and controlled manner (Scheufele, 2013). Scientific reasoning requires expert interlocutors—as representatives of the scientific community in the field—to take a two-sided view on a topic by presenting pro and contra arguments and discussing the topic cooperatively with their expert colleagues (Maier et al, 2016). Their primary goal should be to jointly develop arguments and a well-founded and elaborated picture of the topic of interest rather than simply defending a personal standpoint by undermining alternatives (consensus-oriented vs. persuasive communication; see Garcia-Mila, Gilabert, Erduran, & Felton, 2013).…”