European Trends in Science Communication

Abstract

This chapter reports on current trends in science communication in Europe in the light of several recent studies by the European Commission. The author investigates why the European public's scientific knowledge, as measured by the surveys, has increased substantially over the past few years. He then reviews coverage of science in the European media and analyses the relationships between European scientists and journalists and recent trends in reportage. Noting that it has become harder to gain public acceptance of scientific and technological innovations in Europe, the author argues that the science-society dialogue is insufficiently developed because a genuine communication culture is lacking in the science and technology sector. This lack may hamper the advancement of the sector.

Science-Edu-Communication: Trends Reveal in 20 Years of Science Communication Research

“…The deficit-oriented model broadly views the scientific community as an expert entity that educates the public through gradual dispersion of information through media and communication outlets. Though experts are the main communicators, the act of communication with non-experts will result in changes to the original science content and message (Claessens, 2008;Hilgartner, 1990;McNeil, 2013;Sturgis & Allum, 2004;Suldovsky, 2016). Science communication, in tension with the deficit-oriented model, has in recent years shifted towards a model that regards the public as an interactive partner in discussion in science-related issues (Baram-Tsabari & Osborne, 2015;Bucchi, 2013).…”

Our findings, my method: Framing science in televised interviews

“…Scientists have been identified as privileged sources (Allan et al, 2010; Nielsen and Autzen, 2011) who influence story selection and framing (Albaek, 2011; Anderson et al, 2005). And yet science reporting is usually shaped by what journalists perceive as newsworthy (Ruhrmann et al, 2015; Verhoeven, 2010) and can override scientific expectations of what should be covered and how (Claessens, 2008). Scientists are advised to frame their messages in ways that can elicit participation from wide and diverse publics (Nisbet, 2009), but framing research has focused on journalistic storylines, rather than the stories that researchers tell (Allan et al, 2010; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Maeseele, 2011; Nisbet et al, 2003).…”

“…Most previous studies have dealt with edited reports (Ruhrmann et al, 2015; Verhoeven, 2010) or retrospective interviews (Albaek, 2011; Claessens, 2008). By contrast, this study examines how scientists frame their research in the interactional context of news interviews.…”

‘Younger People Have Like More of an Imagination, No Offence’: Participant Perspectives on Public Engagement

“…Previous research has examined in depth the motivations, benefits and deterrents for scientists seeking to engage with members of the public (Bauer and Jensen, 2011;Burchell, 2007;Burchell, Franklin and Holden, 2009;Classens, 2008;2008, Jensen, Rouquier, Kreimer, andCroissant, 2008;Poliakoff and Webb, 2007;Royal Society, 2006;Authors Reference, 2010). Aspects of this work, as well as the recognition that numerous definitions of public engagement are in operation despite or perhaps due to its broad uptake as a concept (Tlili and Dawson, 2010;Trench, 2008), has led to criticism that some organisations may be driven by a public relations and/or acceptance strategy.…”