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

Abstract

Abstract. CCS (carbon capture and storage) is an important issue within the context of climate-change mitigation options and has played a major role in the agendas of scientists, researchers, and engineers. While media representations of CCS in Germany from 2004 to 2014 demonstrated the significant mediatization of the topic, this cannot be ascribed to science. Instead, CCS media coverage in Germany has been dominated by other stakeholder groups. While CCS is linked to various industry sectors, such as cement and steel production, the German debate has dominantly focussed on the coal and energy branches. This study looks at the role of science and science public relations (PR) within the German public debate by analysing the media coverage of CCS in daily newspapers from 2004 to 2014. If science wishes to remain proactive within science communication, new approaches for future science PR have to be deduced to strengthen, once again, the role of science communication. Among these approaches, it is important to pursue a more differentiated understanding of target audiences and regional concerns. Science PR has to accept that science itself is no longer the only stakeholder and actor within science communication.

How Can Geoscience Communication Foster Public Engagement with Geoconservation?

“…Frequently, the communication of controversial themes leads to misinterpretation about research results, selectively used or quoted to advance policies or political objectives (Boykoff 2008 ) as, for example, the case registered in German media about carbon capture and storage research (Schneider 2019 ). The great polarization and the heated debates around topics like mining exploitation or climate change, in a “battlefield” mode, discourage many scientists from engaging with the media (Boykoff 2008 ).…”

What Do You Expect? Linguistic Reflections on Empathy in Science Communication

“…Emotionality is reflected linguistically either in the use of explicitly descriptive expressions for emotions (such as "annoy," "disturb," "rejoice") or in expressive speech acts (such as praise, scolding, consolation, but also, for example, in the use of irony or the offer of personal insights). One of the hypotheses of this article concerns the rationality of empathy to cope with this emotional level within science communication without losing credibility and trustworthiness (Schneider, 2019).…”

“…This is also because in such communicative contexts the most diverse expectations collide, heavily influencing direct communicative action in the form of reciprocal expectations of expectations. Empathy appears to be a possible way to resolve or even avoid the resulting communicative conflicts (instead of engaging in more emotional communication, e.g., Schneider, 2019). It would therefore be worthwhile taking a closer look at empathy in science communication not only by means of linguistic methods but also using interdisciplinary approaches in communication science, other social sciences, and the humanities (Bender & Janich, 2020).…”

“…This is because-to introduce the second hypothesis-more empathy could lead to fewer expectations being disappointed: be it because they are already empathically anticipated or because, in the event of conflict, an effort to empathize renders them clearer. The article suggests that an examination of empathy in scholarly communication would be a worthwhile field of interdisciplinary research (Schneider, 2019); it would be fruitful to focus on the specific expectations of empathy, the different possible forms in which empathy can be generated, and the signs of a willingness to empathize on the part of the various actors (Bender & Janich, 2020).…”