science communication

When: Tuesday 13th November, 4:00pm – 5:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T12

There is concern that a crisis of trust may be looming between society and scientists, as evidenced by the display of considerable public distrust in important issues such as climate change and childhood vaccinations. This perceived erosion of public confidence in science is one of the impetuses behind the public engagement with science movement, whereby scientists are called upon to engage in dialogues with the public to help improve public trust in science and scientists. Thanks to their built-in architecture for participation, social media have been hailed as useful tools that scientists can use to engage directly with the public. Despite the growing interest in social media to communicate science, evidence for the effectiveness of social media in influencing public attitudes towards science is scant. This study addresses two overarching research questions: (1) does communicating with scientists on social media have any effects on public trust in science and scientists? and (2) what are the factors that affect audience engagement and trust in science?

More than 500,000 space science-related social media messages were collected. The main method used is machine learning, demonstrating the feasibility of automated methods in science communication research. Results indicate that communicating with space scientists on social media causes a boost in trust in science and scientists. Further, results also suggest that the factors associated with audience engagement (e.g., retweets, likes) and trust in science are very different: visual elements stimulate audience engagement, while similarity is the biggest determinant of trust. Authenticity is the only feature that impacts both engagement and trust. This suggests that science audiences like and trust messages that are personal, honest, and genuine. The world increasingly needs scientists to also be advocates of science. The findings of this study represent concrete evidence that could help guide social media science communication efforts.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

Presenter

Yi-Ling Hwong, Post-doctoral research associate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW

Co-Author
Dr Carol Oliver, Senior Research Fellow, University of New South Wales

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

Science communication has been predicated on the deficit model —top-down, one-way communication from scientists to public audiences seen as “… empty vessels – as minds in deficit that need scientific information in order to be replete” [1]. This model has been discredited for 30 years, with research showing that more scientific information does not lead to the desired objectives of increased scientific literacy or public acceptance or agreement with science [2, 3]. And so a new mood for dialogue was identified in the U.K. House of Lords 2000 report [4], which consequently led to the UK’s Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) closing itself down stating: “We have reached the conclusion that the top-down approach which COPUS currently exemplifies is no longer appropriate to the wider agenda that the science communication community is now addressing” [5].

Despite the above, our research suggests that the deficit model not only persists in Australia — it prevails. This study examines the science communication landscape in Australia, specifically during National Science Week in August 2018. Approximately 1300 activity organisers across Australia were asked to complete a short online activity profile survey. Based on the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLO) framework [6] and the CAISE Informal Science Education project framework [7], the survey contained questions about individual activity objectives, style and format. A total of 305 individual activity profiles were collected and categorised using the CAISE project framework.

The results show that across Australia, 71% of National Science Week activities classified as deficit model, while only 3% classified as dialogue or engagement model. This result is higher than the almost 60% of 411 activities categorised as deficit model in the Inspiring Australia audit in 2012 [8]. Based on the research discrediting this model, we argue that the prevalence of the deficit model in Australia may be impacting the effectiveness of science communication efforts in achieving desired objectives.

References
1. Gregory, J. and S. Miller, Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. 1998, New York: Plenum.
2. Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, and G.P. Thomas, The public understanding of science. Nature, 1989. 340(6228): p. 11-14.
3. Thomas, G. and J. Durant, Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific literacy papers, 1987. 1: p. 1-14.
4. House of Lords, Science and Society. 2000, House of Lords: London.
5. Copus, Statement on Copus by the British Assiciation, the Royal Institution and the Royal Society. 2002, The Royal Society: London.
6. Hooper-Greenhill, E., et al., Measuring the Outcomes and Impact of Learning in Museums, archives and Libraries. 2003, University of Leicester: Research centre for Museum and Galleries.
7. McCallie, E., et al., Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. 2009, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE): Washington, D.C.
8. Metcalfe, J., K. Alford, and J. Shore, National audit of Australian science engagement activities. 2012, Inspiring Australia: Canberra, Australia.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Isabelle Kingsley, PhD candidate, Science Communication, University of New South Wales

Co-Author
Dr Carol Oliver, Senior Research Fellow, University of New South Wales

ASC2018 - 11-15 Nov, Sydney

A sea of deficit: The science communication landscape in Australia

Session

Presenter

Australian Science Communicators

Acknowledgements

SPONSORED BY

SUPPORTED BY

TRADE EXHIBITORS