Expert interviews with science communicators: How perceptions of audience values influence science communication values and practices

Abstract

Popular science communicators are a key link between scientists and publics, navigating the values of the scientific community and the perceived interests and values of readers. To do so, these professionals apply shared ideas about the role of science communication in society and about the factors that determine meaningful and newsworthy science stories. And yet we know little about the motivations and assumptions of audience values that underlie shared science communication values and criteria of story selection. Interviews with 14 popular science communicators writing in a variety of formats reveal that both their personal motivations and their perceptions of audience interests and values influence whether and how scientific research is translated into story.Paige Brown ( )

How Do Science Communication Practitioners View Scientists and Audiences in Relation to Public Engagement Activities? A Research Note Concerning the Marine Sciences in Portugal

“…Some of the interviewees also argued that the increase in formal training in science communication in Portugal, such as short courses, master programs, summer courses, and other opportunities that emerged in the past decade, is already having a positive effect on the engagement of scientists with audiences, which should continue into the future. This expressed need for more training also confirms the results of other studies (Dudo, 2013; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007; Trench & Miller, 2012), even for specific groups of science communicators such as writers (e.g., Brown & Scholl, 2014; Treise & Weigold, 2002). Moreover, this was associated with the perceived recent increase in marine science communication in the country and is also consistent with the general growth of communication activities reported in the past 5 years in 63% of Portuguese research institutes (Entradas, 2015).…”

“…Additionally, the interviewees considered that there was a reduced level of science literacy among audiences and a lack of appropriate metrics in this respect. In another study based on interviews of 14 science writers, it was found that both personal motivations and perceptions of the interests and values of audiences influenced their choice of themes and how science stories were told (Brown & Scholl, 2014).…”

Stop avoiding the inevitable: The effects of anthropomorphism in science writing for non-experts

“…It is built into spoken and written language, from storytelling (Sealey and Oakley, 2013) to grammar, especially when using the active voice (Master, 1991) or analogies (Glynn and Takahashi, 1998). These more 'approachable' styles are especially important when writing for audiences who are not experts in the topic (including scientists reading work from outside their field (Lévy-Leblond, 1992)), or in texts that aim to educate, engage or entertain (Brown and Scholl, 2014) rather than rigorously describe processes or results for other experts.…”

Scientific journals should be transformed into science storytellers to improve their visibility

“…In this new paradigm, journal publishers should shift their identity to science storytellers. Science communicators can be defined as people from any background who communicate about various science-related topics; this category encompasses non-fiction authors, journalists, bloggers, news editors, and beyond [2]. Science communicators can be seen as storytellers delivering science to a lay audience in easy-to-understand language.…”

“…Science communicators can be seen as storytellers delivering science to a lay audience in easy-to-understand language. If they understand the values of the scientific community, and the interests and values that readers perceive, their storytelling will serve as a bridge between scientists and the public [2]. Objectives: This essay suggests that science journals should transform into science storytellers to improve the visibility and discoverability of their research findings.…”