Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates scientists’ views on and experiences of collaborating with journalists and engaging in science communication (SciCom) about contested science issues, such as climate change, vaccines, and genetically modified organisms. 27 interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis of the data revealed five themes. These themes highlight the perceived benefits and challenges (concerns) of engaging in SciCom and working with journalists, as well as perspectives on SciCom training, motivations, and the public (audiences). SciCom plays a significant role in fighting misinformation. However, understanding scientists’ experiences and views is needed before more effective SciCom interventions can be formulated and SciCom engagement can be increased.

Keywords

Science communication thematic analysis contested science scientists-journalists collaborations

Introduction

For as long as scientists have sought to inform society about their research, the challenges that follow in the wake of science communication (SciCom) have existed. For example, in 1665, the first research journal (Le Journal des Savants) was published in Paris, but its contents antagonized the Church, which caused the journal to be momentarily suspended (Birn, 1965; Vittu, 2002). The British equivalent (Philosophical Transactions) also ran into trouble when, in 1667, its editor (due to advocating for international scientific correspondence) was accused of being a spy and imprisoned in the Tower for 2 months (Banks, 2009). Regarding the communication of findings to the public, Michael Faraday, for example, famously devoted much effort to popularizing science in the early 19th century; however, being falsely accused of plagiarism kept Faraday away from frontline research for years (Illingworth, 2017; Kondo, 1953). Thus, history shows that scientists and journal publishing platforms have faced (and probably will always face) challenges when communicating research (M. C. Nisbet & Markowitz, 2016). The latter becomes especially apparent when the science is contested. For example, topics such as climate change, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or vaccines have frequently placed scientists in heated public and political debates (Bucchi & Trench, 2021). Nevertheless, research on how scientists working in these contested science areas experience engaging in SciCom within the context of societal polarization over science is scarce. This is problematic as calls for prioritizing science as the foundation upon which political decision-making is built have emerged after the COVID-19 Pandemic exposed how widespread and influential anti-science stances have become (Bunnell et al., 2021).

Research has shown that more SciCom is necessary to combat the proliferation of misinformation while simultaneously maximizing the impact of research findings (Wang et al., 2023). Scientists have increasingly engaged in SciCom in recent years, but a considerable opinion gap can still be found between experts and the general public (Fortenberry, 2018; Scheufele, 2014). While much research has focused on the latter (e.g., the safety of GMOs, anti-vaccine movements, or climate change denial), few studies have explored scientists’ views on communicating contested science (Funk et al., 2015; Hyland-Wood et al., 2021; Marincola, 2006). This is somewhat problematic because if scientists’ experiences and views are not considered, it is difficult to increase their engagement and formulate more effective communication strategies aimed at informing policy-makers, public debates, and even how science is represented in the media (Scheufele, 2014).

Several issues with the current state of SciCom have been observed. For example, scientific information tends to be interpreted differently by the general public, policy-makers, and scientists (Hajdu & Simoneau, 2020). The latter becomes further complicated as scientists often have little communication training (Brownell et al., 2013), meaning that, in a non-expert forum, most scientists do not know “how to be effective, understandable, and accurate” (Lakomý et al., 2019, p. 247). Additionally, journalists are not necessarily science experts, and some may need guidance or training regarding how to communicate more efficiently with scientists and about seemingly complex science (Rubega et al., 2021).

There is also a tendency to consider the public as one homogeneous group. This assumption has been central to most studies investigating SciCom, and thus, these studies tend to disregard the immense diversity within a population (Hunter, 2016; Lobato & Zimmerman, 2019; Morgan et al., 2018; M. Nisbet & Markowitz, 2014). Research has shown that failing to understand or identify target audiences frequently leads to ineffective communication, which, in turn, results in information or messages being lost or only reaching parts of society (Humm et al., 2020). Additionally, it can also cause so-called “boomerang effects” (i.e., when the behavior a campaign is meant to reduce increases instead) that only further exacerbate the issues. For example, these effects have been observed among ideological partisans when scientists have listed scientific facts to correct this audience segment’s misconceptions – prompting some researchers to describe such a strategy as akin to pouring oil on fire (Hart & Nisbet, 2012; Ma & Hmielowski, 2022; Richter et al., 2018). Overall, this shows a range of issues present in the current communication of science.

Research findings can help policy-makers and citizens make informed decisions, and the benefits of effective (and the damages of ineffective) SciCom have potentially significant consequences for societies (Smith & Seitz, 2019). Additionally, due to the continuous rise of misinformation, recent publications call for more engaging, relevant, and accessible SciCom (Wang et al., 2023). However, steps are needed to gain a deeper understanding of scientists’ experiences and views on engaging in SciCom in order to formulate more effective communication strategies and policy interventions (Bunnell et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, uncovering the challenges scientists and experts face and exploring how they try to overcome them are equally important. Therefore, this study aims to investigate how scientists working in contested science areas, such as climate change, GMOs, and vaccines, perceive SciCom and collaboration with journalists. This study also examines scientists’ views on the impact of SciCom on, for example, academic careers, support and encouragement from employers and colleagues, and access to resources or training. Consequently, this is a qualitative study that focuses on developing a sense of the scientists’ experiences, concerns, and views of SciCom. This qualitative perspective provides valuable insights from detailed analysis of extensive accounts (gathered from interviews) and therefore allows for an in-depth exploration of the types of research questions unsuited for quantitative research (Hall & Harvey, 2018).

This study addresses the following research questions:

How do scientists working in contested areas of science, such as anthropogenic climate change, genetically modified organisms, and vaccines, perceive SciCom and SciCom training?

What are these scientists’ views on communicating science to the public and working with the media?

Method

Design and Participants

This study collected qualitative interviews in 2023 with scientists researching and communicating in contested areas by writing for The Conversation (an online publisher of research-based news and analysis with a total monthly global audience of 44.8 million reads, according to their website). It should be noted that in this study, “scientists” is used as an umbrella term for those working within the sciences, including social sciences (i.e., social scientists). About 101 scientists were invited to participate in this study. About 33 agreed to an interview; however, six participants canceled their sessions, meaning 27 participated in total. This sample size aligns with published recommendations for inductive thematic analysis (see, e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2021c; Fugard & Potts, 2015).

Of the 27 participants, 2 chose to send their answers by email, one was interviewed online via Zoom, and 24 were interviewed via Microsoft Teams. All were informed that their interview was being recorded, and consent to use the data was obtained. The interview data were grouped into one document and anonymized for reporting. Because of the sample size, the contested nature of the topics, as well as the specificity of where the participants were recruited, individual information about age, gender, and job position will not be disclosed, as these details could compromise anonymity. The average length of the interviews was approximately 27 min (the shortest interview was 16.08 min, and the longest was 57.11 min).

Interviews were based on a semi-structured interview guide and adopted a conversational style where the questions served as prompts (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015; Manyweathers et al., 2020). The interview guide is provided as Supplementary Material (see Appendix 1).

English-speaking participants were invited to participate regardless of country of residence (see Figure 1). Since the number of interviews per country was usually relatively small, it is not assumed that the data represent all the scientists or academics who have engaged in SciCom in each country. Furthermore, as qualitative research remains focused on the sense-making of lived, observed phenomena within a specific context with specifically selected individuals, attempting to generalize from sample to population is not the goal of this study (Johnson et al., 2020, p. 141). However, the latter does not mean that transferability or the applicability of the findings to, for example, other groups or settings does not exist – this is possible if the data source is explicitly described and such assumptions are made carefully (Byrne, 2022).

Figure 1.

Country of residence and number of participants.

The study has received full ethical approval from Anglia Ruskin University, and all participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Analytical Process

In this study, the method used is inductive (data-driven) thematic analysis (TA). This means that there were no predefined codes (as opposed to a deductive approach, where codes are based on and formulated from, e.g., existing theory (i.e., theory-driven)) (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021a, 2021c; Terry & Hayfield, 2020). Consequently, this is a bottom-up, exploratory, and data-driven approach where keywords and codes are generated from the data, which in turn allow for patterns and themes to be identified (Naeem et al., 2023). Additionally, it should be noted that an interpretivist stance was adopted to enable a focus on meaning-making, motivations, and a deeper understanding of the scientists’ experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2021c).

Braun and Clarke (2006) developed a six-step guide to TA, which was later refined by Naeem et al. (2023) by adding a search for keywords and quotation selection. Consequently, the Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021a) and Naeem et al. (2023) version and method for inductive thematic analysis were followed as they allow for a close and thorough data analysis, which in turn enables the identification of themes (Braun & Clarke, 2021a). It is important to note that within a qualitative paradigm, “the subjectivity of the researcher is seen as integral to the process of analysis. […]. Themes are developed from coding and working with the data and codes, rather than pre-existing the coding process. They are the outcome of the analytic process, rather than a starting point. They are not imagined or anticipated early on, and do not drive analytic direction. Coding and theme development are assumed to be subjective and interpretative processes” (Terry et al., 2017, p. 7). Thus, by embracing subjectivity as essential to the process of TA (and as valuable instead of problematic), it enables researchers to become an instrument for analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021a; Nowell et al., 2017). However, this is not done passively, as good qualitative research requires the interrogation of subjectivity by engaging in (A) personal (identity and values of the researcher), (B) functional (the form or function of the research), and (C) disciplinary (the nature and influence of the field of enquiry) reflexivity (Braun & Clarke, 2021a, 2021b; Wilkinson, 1988, p. 493). Consequently, critical self-reflection was applied throughout the analysis stages of this study. To highlight the importance of the latter, Braun and Clarke (2021a) now typically refer to this type of TA as “Reflexive Thematic Analysis” (Byrne, 2022).

The following Table 1 shows the TA process (the analytic phases and how they were applied to the study):

Table 1.

The Six Steps^a of Thematic Analysis.

Analytic phase	Application to the studies
Familiarization with the data	Step 1 involved immersion in the data by reading and re-reading the interview transcripts while noting thoughts. This step also included sorting the data (and quotation selection).
Generating keywords and initial codes	Step 2 involved adding keywords. These keywords were directly derived from the data and used to produce the initial codes that identified relevant features of the data.
Searching for themes	Step 3 involved coding for potential themes/patterns. The codes and potential themes were checked, discussed, and modified.
Reviewing themes	Step 4 involved re-reading the entire data set to check whether the candidate themes accurately reflected the representations of scientists.
Defining and naming themes	Step 5 involved clearly defining the themes (i.e., what they are and what they are not). Additionally, titles were assigned to accurately reflect the essence of each theme.
Producing the report	Step 6 involved writing up the analytic narrative supported by extracts of the data.

Adapted from K. Campbell et al. (2021), Braun and Clarke (2006), and Naeem et al. (2023).

The data-driven process was divided into two phases. First, the interviews and their transcripts were reviewed, and coding was carried out. Initially, the codes were based on the interview questions (Manyweathers et al., 2020). However, this initial coding process was also enabled by a constant comparative method of analysis, which refers to the inductive strategy of coding the data, “comparing data with data and codes with codes” (Bingham, 2023, p. 2). The second stage of analysis involved a deeper iterative examination and review of these initial codes. The initial codes were collated in order to establish an outline of possible themes relevant to the research questions before naming the said provisional themes (C. Campbell et al., 2023). It should be noted that the research questions informed this process (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Manyweathers et al., 2020). Finally, the themes were reviewed and named, and quotations that illustrated the overarching themes were compiled.

Results

Five themes were identified (see Figure 2), showing how scientists working in the contested science of climate change, GMOs, or vaccines perceive SciCom, collaboration with journalists, as well as their views on SciCom and an academic career, support and encouragement from employers and colleagues, and access to resources or training.

Figure 2.

Thematic map of the five themes.

T1: When the Gown Meets the Town: The Importance of Communicating Research to the General Public

The first theme concerns how participants described that scientists should communicate research to the public. Many point to this as a responsibility; however, some acknowledge that not everyone enjoys or is necessarily interested in SciCom, even though the skills gained from engaging with the public are described as beneficial. The theme also shows that participants believe public trust in scientists is generally high, but after the pandemic, scientists have become more aware of issues, such as the proliferation of incorrect information, self-proclaimed experts, the influence of political ideology, and being attacked (e.g., online) by those who disagree. The issues surrounding public trust, listening to scientists, and understanding science are described. Despite the said issues, the participants think they should actively try to influence how science is debated in the public sphere because SciCom is a tool that can help fight (though not eradicate) misinformation. In the interviews, scientists concur that communicating with the general public comes with the territory of being a scientist. Consider the following example:

“[If it] is not done, it’s almost like that research effort is wasted. It will just be another document on the shelf […]. In fact, there used to be a famous Nigerian professor [and] when he was talking about the impact of academic institutions on communities, he used to ask, ‘Has the gown met the town?’”

This shows that the gown meeting the town, or the research meeting the audience, is an essential part of being a scientist for this participant. This quote also highlights how academic institutions and the societies they serve are frequently viewed as disconnected (E. Jones et al., 2021; Olusanya & Ideh, 2017). This disconnect is described as stemming from differences in how experts and non-experts interpret or understand science and research, as well as from a tendency to oversimplify information:

“[…] there is a real sort of professional, disciplinary, and conceptual gap between how, you know, academics, scientists understand what they do and how the general public understands what they do. I think there hasn’t been enough work to offer some kind of translation between these two. I think that there’s this kind of problem of not trusting the public to be able to… to be capable of nuance.”

The above extract exemplifies how the participants describe a perceived lack of “translation” between scientific research and the public. The latter speaks to how SciCom is described as necessary to bridge this gap. Consequently, the participants agree that communicating with the public is not only part of being a scientist but also a responsibility. However, not all SciCom events attract a lot of public attention (“It’s not as if the public’s queuing up for information”), and this resonates with the above extract and a sense of the public not being “capable of nuance.” This shows that, even though there is a sense of responsibility to disseminate scientific research, the respondents in this study were quick to demonstrate the immediate challenges of getting this information through to the public. Additionally, it was highlighted that “you can be a good scientist without being interested in communicating your research,” even though the skills that can be gained through engaging with the public are recognized as beneficial, as is shown in this example:

“I tell my colleagues all the time that the more you communicate science to the public, the better scientist you are because a huge part of any scientist’s career is communicating science to their colleagues, writing papers, giving talks… at the end of the day, you have to convince your community that your ideas are interesting, new, valuable, important, worth paying attention to. And so [through] the skills you develop in communicating science, you are achieving all those same goals.”

The quote above highlights how some treat disseminating scientific results as an essential part of a “scientist’s career” (described in more detail in Theme 3). However, given the challenges described in the previous extracts, this example also shows how, even with those issues, it is crucial to be able to “convince” an audience about the value and impact of this research. Nevertheless, the participants emphasized that this depends on whether or not the audience will listen – and that is in itself contingent on “who the non-experts are.” Thus, “those who are open-minded and genuinely want answers, do listen. But many people have a bias related to world views, including religion and politics. Many have been corrupted by misinformation.”

Relevant to the latter, the participants describe their SciCom efforts as tending to “only reach an audience that has already chosen to listen” and ”there is a certain amount of self-selection because the people who come to a science talk want to engage with science already. The people who do not want to engage in science are not buying my books. They’re not downloading my podcast. They are not coming to my public talks. So the people who show up already are primed to be engaged and primed to get something out of it.” These quotes highlight issues with reaching different types of audiences.

The last issue with communicating with the public centers around how most non-experts are perceived as not having a good grasp on science (“because why would they […] there isn’t too much education about that anywhere, you know, in our school system”).

Additionally, some participants showed concerns about the public not fully understanding a scientific process: “Do I think people understand the process of how it happens and what’s involved and how we get to the answer […] that I don’t […]. Details are not something the public is well aware of, but I think most people know that there’s a scientific process but don’t really know what it is and how we end up with what we end up with.” This quote is important to note as it highlights a possible communication mismatch between scientists’ understanding of their science and non-experts’ interpretation of what is being communicated.

The above-mentioned lack of understanding of the scientific method is also thought to influence the public’s grasp of uncertainty:

“[…] it’s a challenge to explain complex science about basic scientific principles […] particularly around uncertainty and around how science changes over time. How you know what are known as facts actually evolves as we learn more, and that’s actually an integral part of a scientific process. […].”

Despite these concerns, it was pointed out that communicating science in a way that makes non-experts understand how it is valuable (or relevant) to them could spark interest, make the audience listen, and give them a better grasp of the science:

“Non-experts have a good grasp of science in as far as it is communicated in a way that is valuable to them […] if you try to find a point of reference to the everyday issues, then you’ll be able to spark everybody’s interest and they will listen to that. It’s all about how do we package the information to portray its value to the bigger community.”

This shows how the participants underline the importance of communicating more effectively by connecting better with the public. However, the latter was perceived as contingent on being aware of the impact of academic language because “the problem we have is that science is a particular discipline and there’s a particular way of writing. And I think that, for example, papers that are written […] for the scientific reader, not for the general public. So unless you’re an expert in the area, it’s very difficult to actually understand what they’re saying unless you spend a lot of time trying to come through and understand some of the terms. There’s a lot of jargon that gets through and around.” This shows that issues with effectively conveying research to non-experts (due to jargon) remain. Additionally, it suggests that knowing what the general public knows is challenging (Willoughby et al., 2020).

It was mentioned that it is possible that the views about the public grasp of science may not be completely accurate, as “there is a small and vocal minority of people who do not have a good grasp of science and that unfortunately sometimes skews our perception of the broader public understanding. But my experience has very much been that most people are interested in science and technology […] and very keen and interested to engage with it - but they don’t necessarily respond well to super technical language.” This shows that the scientists view the majority of the public as possibly being more receptive and interested in science when given the opportunity.

Finally, there was general agreement that scientists should try to actively influence how science is being debated in the public sphere by non-experts: “I think it’s valuable for scientists to engage in those debates. I don’t know if we can influence how they’re overall structured or you know what the outcomes are, but certainly, you know to not engage or to pretend like they’re not happening […] that is not helpful.” This quote shows how the participants described that scientists should engage in debates with non-experts because “[…] if scientists had a bit of a bigger impact in communicating these concepts [scientific process and healthy skepticism], maybe it would be a bit easier and [we] could have a bit of a healthy debate.”

T2: Science in the Media: Working with Journalists

This theme illustrates how scientists and researchers describe actively trying to influence how science is presented in the media as a responsibility, an ethical and moral duty, and as part of the job. However, opinions about the ease of working with journalists or attracting media attention were divided. Additionally, the theme highlights the motivations for collaborating with journalists, the major concerns that have kept scientists and researchers from working with the Media, and views on trusting journalists to convey science and research to the public accurately.

The participants agreed that scientists and researchers “have a responsibility” to try to actively influence how science is presented in the media:

“[Scientists are] “responsible for the messages that go out, and they can’t just put something out there and then mind their own business.”

However, despite the general agreement that scientists should engage with the media and journalists, the participants had varied views on the ease of such collaboration. First, it was pointed out that attracting media attention “depends on the situation” or the topic:

“If you can talk about dinosaurs or sex, you will get interviews left, right and center - And if you’re not talking about dinosaurs or sex, then you’re going to have to work harder to get the media’s attention.”

Second, some participants did not consider it easy to work with journalists (“[…] I think it’s difficult to get hold of journalists, decent journalists”), while others did not view collaboration as difficult once one understands “how it works.” However, most pointed out that it depends on the individual journalist:

“Well, it depends on the journalists. Some journalists are OK, and others are terrible.”

This shows that ensuring that science and research are conveyed accurately to the general public is viewed as important; however, attracting quality media attention is not always easy. Moreover, several participants pointed out that, when successful in procuring media attention, an obstacle to a fruitful collaboration is time, as journalists either “don’t have the time,”“work on crazy deadlines [or] have to produce stuff really fast.” SciCom is then forced to fit these conditions, which can negatively impact the scientists and their science.

In addition to these issues, several concerns have given scientists and academics pause for thought before collaborating with the Media:

“[…] I have done a lot of media work with a lot of good journalists, and by and large, journalists are trying to do their job and they’re doing a pretty good job by and large. There are however, media organizations that I know ahead of time would not be truthful. So I would not… I don’t interact with them.”

This quote shows that the possibility of getting involved with cagey media organizations is considered. For example, despite acknowledging that many journalists are doing their job, it was pointed out that: “Some interviewers have their own agenda, and try to distort what you are saying, and you need to be aware of this possibility.”

These quotes highlight that the participants “trust some of them. Not all [journalists]” to communicate their research to the public, or as one interviewee remarked: “they need an editor and to have integrity.” This example also shows how participants spend time researching the journalists and looking at ways that they have presented certain issues in the past:

“I have to look up that producer or that journalist to look at their publication history to see how truthfully and honestly they represent the science and whether they cherry pick quotes.”

The latter appear to be especially important when working in contested science areas. For example, one participant pointed out that “[…] there is one journalist that I will never speak to, and he is a writer for a far right-wing magazine […], and he is on an absolute campaign to ruin the credibility of climate scientists.” Another participant highlighted how journalists’ goals are subtly different from the scientists’: “[…] they’re trying to get people to come to their website. I’m trying to make people not scared of GMOs. […] And so I want to say yes, I trust them, but I don’t.” Finally, it was pointed out that explaining science in the media exposes the scientist to abuse: “[…] anytime you’re in the media and you’re promoting vaccines or talking about COVID, it’s so… I wish it was the old days when at least if the people who wanted to abuse you, they had to buy a postage stamp and they had to actually write a letter […] but these days anyone can do a Google search and find your email address […] So I think […] that’s the cost […], the cost is just being abused.”

These quotes highlight how those working with contested science, such as GMOs, climate change, and vaccines, face not only the challenges of, for example, avoiding having their science misrepresented in the media but also having to accept the possibility of personal harassment and abuse.

Despite these concerns, the participants are still motivated to work with journalists because they want to “[…] get the policy-makers to think about [scientific] issues” and “[t]o get more information out there basically” because “[…] communicating to the public is sort of essential to getting support for the work that we do.” This shows that the participants are geared towards collaborating with the media. Furthermore, communicating is considered essential when the participants notice that people are missing an important point or piece of information, and they want to bring attention to this issue:

“Well, it’s because I usually think that there’s something missing in the public discussion. There’s something happening that is not being appreciated in the public forum and I wanna bring people’s attention to it.”

Sharing research with the media also stems from the “quixotic desire to try to have a positive impact on the world,” as well as from a sense of professional obligation:

“I think there is a professional obligation to do it when journalists think your research could be relevant for someone outside of academia.”

The quote above highlights that sharing research that could be relevant to society is considered part of being a scientist or researcher.

Thus, this theme identifies the experiences that many scientists have when working with journalists to communicate scientific information in contested areas. The theme also shows that, despite a range of concerns, scientists are aware they need to work closely with journalists and the media to shape how science is presented and communicated by journalists.

T3: Science Communication and an Academic Career: Benefits and Drawbacks

The third theme presents the consensus among the scientists and researchers that engaging in SciCom is compatible with an academic career (although time constraints and the risk of one’s research becoming politicized are highlighted as obstacles). In Theme 1, the participants mentioned that SciCom can, at times, benefit an academic career (such as gaining better communication skills, public visibility, or the attention of funding bodies); however, this theme shows that these benefits are considered as circumstantial in that the production of papers or articles for academic journals is still perceived as the main factor that fuels a researcher’s or scientist’s career. Finally, Theme 3 shows that despite the benefits, SciCom is not particularly encouraged by colleagues. The latter does not mean that colleagues are against engaging in SciCom. Instead, encouragement from colleagues is simply not something that happens often, and it does not play a significant role in the decisions to engage with SciCom.

There is a general consensus that engaging in SciCom is compatible with an academic career: “I think it’s increasingly seen as as part of an academic career.” Furthermore, many agreed that an academic career has to include SciCom:

“I think an academic career has to include not only the research but the communication of the results of research, which means to the scientific community, to policymakers and to the general public as far as possible.”

This shows how SciCom has become an integral part of academia, which also highlights that attitudes have changed in the last two decades (Gani et al., 2024). However, it was pointed out that though SciCom is generally perceived as compatible with an academic career, time constraints make it difficult to engage fully in communicating one’s research to the public:

“I do think it should be compatible, but the problem is that they [scientists and researchers] are dealing with time constraints.”

Furthermore, it was suggested that not all science topics are compatible, in that some of these can become politicized:

“Yes, umm. Although some forms of science communication are incompatible, and that’s when one becomes politicized.”

The quote highlights the issue of politicization, which is difficult to tackle because many problems facing societies are scientific in origin, meaning that empirical evidence is needed to formulate and justify policies aimed at curbing the impact of, for example, climate change or a pandemic (Schmid-Petri et al., 2022). However, when scientists communicate in settings where their science is tied to decisions on divisive public issues, they are confronted with how many people frequently “make different choices about whom to believe than do people in other settings” (Lupia, 2013, p. 14048). Therefore, the above quote also suggests that becoming politicized is something to avoid. The latter becomes more apparent in the following quote, exemplifying how research placed within the context of contested or politically controversial science was perceived as something that can potentially hurt an academic career:

“I know other other scientists have lost their jobs for speaking out in other contexts […]. So potentially, because it wasn’t a secure job to begin with […] It can hurt.”

This quote shows how one participant described colleagues who had been fired after being caught in politicized situations. It also indicates that being a scientist or researcher is not necessarily considered a secure job, and some might not want to jeopardize their career by becoming involved in politicized debates.

Another challenge that was described is jealousy as “[g]etting work written up in the New York Times can increase visibility and get one offers to speak at conferences, give seminars, or elsewhere. […] But it can also lead to jealousy: scientists are human.” This observation echoes prior research suggesting that ambivalence toward highly visible scientists exists (Rödder, 2011, p. 155).

Despite the above-mentioned, the participants listed several benefits of engaging in SciCom in an academic career, for example:

“Many funding bodies, e.g. the Wellcome Trust, put a lot of emphasis on science communication. It is likely to make it easier for you to get funding from these bodies if you are a good communicator.”

Engaging in SciCom also “[…] earns you points. […] it’s a nice bonus kind of thing to have when you go up for tenure or promotion.” Additionally, SciCom can result in receiving invitations: “[…] the fact that […] people see that […] you’re able to communicate […] well then you get invited to speak at conferences and so forth.” This shows that the participants recognize that engaging in SciCom can be advantageous to some degree. However, it was also pointed out that these benefits may “depend on circumstances” as SciCom engagement is not always recognized as an achievement:

“[…] because all that matters is how many papers you produce […], not even the quality of the papers or the impact of the moment […] just getting your name on papers and getting grants and nothing else gets measured. Umm, so […] if you wanna be a success, that’s [SciCom] not what, not where you put your energy.”

The quote above highlights that the primary drivers of an academic career are publishing research papers and obtaining grants, which means that SciCom’s engagement receives less attention due to work priorities.

Finally, the participants mentioned that colleagues only somewhat encourage SciCom:

“The thing is that I… I just do what I have to do anyway. And my colleagues don’t really enter into the equation. But no one has objected.”

Thus, it does not mean that colleagues are discouraging SciCom. Instead, it is “neither encouraged nor discouraged” and simply does not receive much attention or play a big role in the decisions to engage with SciCom.

To sum up, this theme shows how the participants describe the benefits and drawbacks of SciCom on an academic career, which can impact decisions to engage.

T4: Scientists’ Views on Science Communication Training

The fourth theme presents scientists’ and researchers’ views on SciCom training. The participants agree that scientists and researchers can benefit from communication training. Additionally, the majority affirm that their universities offer training courses, but opinions on their usefulness or applicability divide the participants. Moreover, many have not taken the SciCom courses offered, citing time constraints and the need to prioritize other work-related tasks. Finally, this theme shows that those who have participated in communication training have identified some overlooked or unaddressed issues in these courses.

SciCom courses are viewed as generally beneficial to improve communication skills: “I think even just some of those basic skills, the communication training is a huge opportunity to get us thinking differently about how we’re communicating.” Additionally, communication training is viewed as something that can “be a nice kind of eye opening sort of thing to kind of understand how media moves, you know, outside of the circles that they [scientists] normally associate in.” Furthermore, SciCom training “could help them [scientists] understand even how to craft a message to different audiences, even if they don’t want to be the primary person to do it.” However, some highlight that for the training to be effective, the scientists have to “want it” and that the quality of the training courses impacts how useful they are: “I think a lot of the ones that I’ve come across have been rather basic, and they have to be. You’ve gotta start from somewhere.” This indicates that much of the SciCom training offered may only be introductory.

Access to communication training is described as offered (in limited quantity: “Occasionally there are offers”) but seldom used (“it’s just very underemphasized. Very few people do it”) - and rarely considered overly useful or helpful by those who attended.

“I think they’re pretty superficial, to be honest. […] they’re not really science communication courses. They’re media training courses, so they are really just about the practical skills of, you know, answering questions when and getting comfortable […].”

Those who have taken a SciCom workshop or course pointed out overlooked or unaddressed issues regarding the training they received. For example, “early career scholars” were perceived as missing “the tools to sort of identify and understand where you could promote your research or communicate science.” Additionally, the participants felt that not much attention has been given to what types of dangers to look out for, such as: “be[ing] aware of how your work might be distorted in the press office and to really be on top of that.” This shows that some SciCom training does not necessarily address scientists’ major concerns or needs. In relation to the latter, the SciCom courses were also described as focusing on media training (“on either writing or dealing with journalists”) and not public communication:

“[…] mostly they’re focused on speaking with the media. […] I think there ought to be some training around how to write a really good pitch for your work. I think there ought to be some training around how to speak effectively […] I think [it] is critical in terms of training scientists to speak more generally and communicate more generally about their work.”

This theme shows that SciCom training is generally considered by the participants to be beneficial. However, the training offered does not have much impact, as it remains basic, access is limited, and participation is minimal. Furthermore, issues are identified, suggesting that the training does not always address the needs described above.

T5: Main Issues Hindering Effective Science Communication

The last theme presents the main issues perceived as obstacles to effective SciCom. The most significant one is time constraints, as priority is given to scientists’ and researchers’ work, meaning they have to be willing to make time for SciCom, often on a voluntary basis. The following quote shows how the issue of time is typically described:

“[A] typical professor’s time is dominated by either teaching or research, depending on what kind of university they are based at. If they’re at a research focused university, most of their time is spent writing grants, writing papers, advising graduate students, a small amount of time is devoted to teaching, a small amount of time is devoted to service to their department, so serving on various committees or advising undergraduate students. And then there’s nothing left, and all of those tasks already take up more than 8 hours a day and the same is true for teaching faculty at teaching focused universities most of their time is spent teaching classes, grading homework. There isn’t enough time in a typical academic’s career to do the things that they’re supposed to do anyway for their paycheck, let alone extra stuff.”

The above quote is an example of how most of the participants reported being overtasked. Consequently, not having enough time affects engagement with SciCom. The quote also highlights that the activity is not considered a top priority in academics’ everyday work lives. However, other issues were mentioned. For example, there is a perceived lack of Institutional support (“[there are] institutional barriers and lack of support that sometimes people are swimming against the stream in order to do it [SciCom]”) and interest:

“As an academic, there’s no kind of compulsion so long as you’re doing, you know, your research mainly. There’s no compulsion necessarily by institutions that academics do one podcast a year and a conversation article a year and a BBC, you know, think tank piece a year, for example, that there’s no, there’s no requirement.”

This shows that many do not feel pushed to engage in SciCom despite many reporting that “[…] institutional support is very, very important.” Participants also mentioned the possibility of backlash, overstepping, and, as mentioned in Theme 3, jealousy as issues hindering engagement with SciCom. For example, it was pointed out that it can be hard to get credit for being a good communicator:

“[…] as a working scientist, I found it harder to be taken seriously as a science communicator by science communicators. So there there’s a bit of a backlash that scientists should stay in the lab. Science communicators can handle talking to the public.”

Successful SciCom “can also lead to jealousy” or challenge hierarchical structures within academia. The following quote highlights that early-career researchers may face collegial disapproval for their engagement in SciCom:

“I think there is a more complex piece around hierarchy in academia, which probably needs to be looked at, where there is a sense that you don’t want to get too big for your boots. Academia is an inherently incredibly competitive sector and internally competitive within institutions and even within schools or labs. And so there can be a sense that you are, umm, you’re outgrowing your welcome, essentially, if, if you’re not deemed to be sufficiently senior to be speaking out on a particular piece of research.”

In addition to underscoring how scientific debates have become “[…] more and more polarized and politicized,” some mentioned that many scientists engaging in SciCom still adhere to the knowledge deficit model:

“I think that scientists still have this idea that sort of knowledge deficit model, and if we just give people the information, they’ll make the right choice. And there’s research over and over and over again saying that that is not the case […]. I think one of the biggest hindrances to science communication is still using these outdated methods, approaches, and concepts in science communication.”

Many felt that not all research areas appear sexy or dramatic to non-experts, which results in less of an audience and could tempt some scientists to distort their science:

“I think that the number one issue is…that it’s hard to get people to read things that don’t sound very, very sexy, dramatic, explosive. But then… then you have to distort, but then you’re distorting your science […].”

Finally, the participants pointed to trust, as currently, “there’s a lot more mistrust of experts.” These issues with trust were described as being impacted by “the subject,” and have become more apparent after the pandemic:

“[…] after the pandemic, my gosh. Yeah. […] I think the majority of people do trust experts and researchers […], but I think there’s a growing proportion of people who don’t view it that way anymore. […].”

This shows a growing awareness among the participants of the impact of societal polarization over contested science on trust and on rejection or acceptance of science. The latter was perceived as also affected by the abundance of often incorrect information circulating on the Internet (“there’s just so much information out there, so I wonder if [scientific information] gets lost […]”) or by self-proclaimed experts (“there are too many who pretend to be experts”) muddying the water and making it hard for non-experts to find correct information about contested science issues.

The identified main issues hindering effective SciCom show that scientists want to and do communicate about their science; however, they are facing challenges they are not always trained to handle. Furthermore, institutional support, work-life organization, and even hierarchical structures within academia impact SciCom engagement.

Discussions and Conclusions

This study examines scientists’ views on and experiences with SciCom. Five themes were observed in relation to the research questions. These themes illustrate the key recurring patterns in the data and identify perceived benefits and challenges of communicating research to the public and working with journalists (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

A brief summary of the main findings and their implications.

The first theme shows that participants agree that scientists should communicate their research to the general public. Many point to this as a responsibility (which aligns with prior research; see, e.g., Loroño-Leturiondo & Davies, 2018). However, it was acknowledged that not everyone enjoys or is necessarily interested in SciCom (despite valuable skills gained from engaging with the public). Furthermore, there were issues with getting the audiences’ attention and with non-experts’ understanding of science (which also aligns with prior research; see, e.g., Willoughby et al., 2020). These findings show that scientists recognize the importance of SciCom, but being a scientist does not automatically guarantee interest or expertise in explaining or relating research to non-experts (Anderson, 2020; R. Jones et al., 2019).

The latter is important because it highlights the frequently overlooked issue of individual differences. The literature on individual differences among scientists in the context of SciCom engagement is slim at best. Consequently, this topic is ripe for future theoretical and empirical research aimed at advancing knowledge of how this impacts engagement and output.

In the introduction, it was emphasized that the immense diversity within the public has been overlooked, which has been argued to influence effective SciCom (Hunter, 2016; Lobato & Zimmerman, 2019; Morgan et al., 2018; M. Nisbet & Markowitz, 2014). Building on the latter, this study draws attention to how science and scientists are diverse as well. For example, according to Kulkarni (2013), science tends to be thought of as the abstract pursuit of knowledge (usually conducted at a university or research institute); however, this may present a problem because “science” is not “one thing,” rather it comprises everything from educational psychology to space physics, and within these fields some research involves experiments, and some do not. Therefore, not only is science complex, but scientists are also not “one thing,” nor do scientists think alike. As such, it offers a criticism of not only this study but also of SciCom training by highlighting that “science” and “scientists” are broad generalizations and, therefore, it is possible that statements about “how to do” SciCom tend to be too simplified (or worse, not applicable or useful to all scientists and sciences). This shows that in addition to the need to understand better the composition of and how to best communicate with diverse audiences, there is also a need to understand the diversity of scientists and their sciences, their perspectives, and their individual conceptions of SciCom (Judd & McKinnon, 2021; Kessler et al., 2022; Lewenstein, 2024; Schneider & Heinecke, 2019).

Relevant to the above, Fischer and Schmid-Petri (2023) pointed out that “there is often (still) no uniform understanding of science communication [within many institutions]” (p. 14). Additionally, these researchers showed that the science communicators they interviewed in their study defined what they did as “somewhat ‘like’ the job of science journalists” while emphasizing that science journalism is a different profession (p. 5). It should be noted that Fischer and Schmid-Petri did not interview any scientists; only people working as professional science communicators (e.g., for museums or as science writers). This is important because if professional science communicators differ in how they make sense of their work (or understand the profession), it can be argued that scientists (often with limited communication training) can be even more unclear about how to engage in SciCom – despite the recognized importance of doing so (Fischer & Schmid-Petri, 2023; Metcalfe, 2022; Trench, 2017).

The second theme shows that scientists and researchers are motivated to actively try to influence how science is presented in the Media. They describe this as a responsibility, an ethical and moral duty, and part of the job. However, they have concerns about misrepresentations of science. These concerns are not unwarranted; for example, distorted interpretations of science regarding e-cigarettes and COVID-19 caused bulk buying and increased addiction among the public during the Pandemic (Silver et al., 2022). Furthermore, previous research has shown that fear of misrepresentation keeps many from engaging in SciCom (Washburn et al., 2022). Thus, SciCom training must address scientists’ concerns and their need for tools and support to overcome this barrier if engagement is to increase.

Collaboration between scientists and journalists is essential to inform the public about scientific discoveries and developments, as underscored by the Pandemic. However, time constraints, staff reductions, and sporadic interest in science have had an impact on both the quality and quantity of science reporting (Buschow et al., 2024). The latter aligns with the division in opinions about the ease of working with journalists or attracting media attention, suggesting that some scientists struggle to get media attention for their research. This suggests that contested or “sexy” issues may receive significant attention, whereas other topics tend to be ignored. Consequently, it can be argued that SciCom is an umbrella term that, at times, can be considered too broad because the effectiveness of and interest in communication are often affected by the topic or issue discussed, meaning different approaches are needed to effectively disperse scientific knowledge (Beniermann et al., 2021).

The third theme shows consensus among the participants that engaging in SciCom is compatible with and can benefit an academic career (although obstacles are highlighted). However, the benefits are described as circumstantial in that the production of papers or articles for academic journals is still perceived as the main factor that propels a career. This finding underscores the need for institutional support and incentives to increase SciCom (Eise, 2019). Furthermore, SciCom is not particularly encouraged by colleagues. The latter does not mean that colleagues are against engaging in SciCom. Instead, encouragement by colleagues is simply not something that happens often, and it does not play a significant role in decisions to engage with SciCom. This finding indicates that some scientists are in environments where engagement in SciCom is neither valued nor discouraged, which can negatively affect the time and effort they devote to communicating their research to the public (Rose et al., 2020).

The impact of the politicization of science on an academic career was also highlighted. Recently, several stories have surfaced of scientists being fired for speaking up for, for example, climate change (see, e.g., Abramoff, 2023; Tollefson, 2024). The cases of scientists being fired led the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law to publish a call to safeguard the integrity of scientific research and protect government scientists, stating that “improper political interference in government research undermines the critical role that unbiased science plays in our democracy. These examples highlight the need for laws that protect government researchers and scientific integrity itself” (Mehrbani & Kinsella, 2019, para. 24). Relevant to the latter, the Silencing Science Tracker was also created, which is a joint project of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. The Silencing Science Tracker “records reported attempts by federal, state, and local government actors to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information” (Webb & Kurtz, 2022, p. 65). To illustrate what this means, the tracker recorded 346 anti-science actions taken by the federal government between President Trump’s election and President Biden’s inauguration, according to Webb and Kurtz (2022). These actions are categorized by the researchers as (1) government censorship, (2) self-censorship, (3) budget cuts, (4) personnel changes, (5) research hindrance, and (6) bias and misrepresentation. Thus, this finding highlights that, despite the many benefits of engaging in science communication, the politicization of a scientific topic can negatively impact an academic career. Further, this shows an urgent need for future research to investigate how these impacts can be remedied and how scientists can be protected.

The fourth theme captures scientists’ and researchers’ views on SciCom training. The participants agree that scientists and researchers can benefit from communication training. Additionally, the majority affirmed that their universities offer training courses, but the question of usefulness or applicability divides the participants. Many have not taken the SciCom courses offered, citing the need to prioritize other work-related tasks. This indicates that SciCom training may have less of an impact despite being increasingly offered. The latter is important because interest in science communication training has been low, though emerging research has begun investigating what science communication training comprises, and some have called for quality evaluations (Akin et al., 2021; Dudo et al., 2021; Fähnrich et al., 2021). Thus, there is a need to develop rigorous, comparable approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of such training (Rubega et al., 2021). The latter aligns with how the participants who attended communication training identified issues, such as the courses being superficial, not particularly helpful, or focused on media training instead of how to communicate research to the general public or policy-makers. This finding is important as it suggests that some SciCom training offered to scientists may not address the type of preparation and support needed to engage audiences other than those of journalists and fellow academics (Fähnrich et al., 2021). Furthermore, the possibility of facing abuse or harassment when engaging in SciCom can affect the readiness to communicate with the general public (Valiverronen & Saikkonen, 2021). More focus has been allocated to the latter; for example, scientists have begun speaking up against the abuse they receive and calling for strategies to be implemented to help cope and protect those involved (Levy, 2023; Nölleke et al., 2023). Consequently, this shows that communication training needs to address how to deal with harassment, abuse, and threats because, currently, not much support is available to those who engage in science communication.

The fifth theme presents the main issues perceived as obstacles to effective SciCom. The most significant one is time constraints, as priority is given to scientists’ and researchers’ work. Other issues are also highlighted, for example, lack of institutional support, backlash, not getting credit for being a good communicator, potential misuse or temptation to distort research, and concerns about research caught in politicized or polarized debates. These perceived obstacles have implications for the field and practice of SciCom and underscore that research into evaluations of the effectiveness of SciCom training is sparse; therefore, including more comprehensive perspectives from those who participated in such training may help inform efforts to provide better tools to cope with barriers hindering effective SciCom (Fähnrich et al., 2021). The theme also highlighted a growing recognition that some science topics have become increasingly politically polarized. The latter is especially problematic because when empirical evidence is no longer considered impartial or trustworthy, the impact of SciCom is low as scientists and their research face opposition or rejection (Rekker, 2021). Thus, further research is needed to explore how political polarization over science affects SciCom engagement and efficiency (Altenmüller et al., 2024).

This study has limitations that need to be considered. First, English-speaking participants were invited to participate regardless of country of residence. Since the number of interviews per country was usually relatively small, it is not assumed that the data represent all the scientists or academics who have engaged in science communication in each country.

It is also important to note that this study does not address the impact of the advances in generative AI on SciCom. This is of interest because the topic was not mentioned by the participants, despite research indicating that AI can be an easy-to-use tool that helps scientists communicate with different audiences (Biyela et al., 2024). However, this tool can also have a tremendously negative impact on trust in scientists, as illustrated by recent publications of scientific articles that show signs of having been (at least partially) written by generative AI. For example, in the discussion section of one article, it reads:

“In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I’m very sorry, but I don’t have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. I can provide general information about managing hepatic artery, portal vein, and bile duct injuries, but for specific cases, it is essential to consult with a medical professional […]” (Bader et al., 2024, p. 2110).

Thus, investigating how trust is affected is relevant in terms of the ways that generative AI will produce “scientific information,” as seen above, which not only lowers the public’s confidence in scientists and journal publishing platforms but also decreases mutual collegial trust among scientists. It is, therefore, of utmost importance for future research to investigate and address AI’s challenges and benefits, as well as its impact on SciCom, what it means to be a scientist, and science itself.

In conclusion, the overwhelming amount of false or misguided information, combined with social media-fueled echo chambers, reinforced science denial during the Pandemic and highlighted the need for more effective SciCom strategies (Miller, 2020). However, for these strategies to have an impact, more scientists have to engage in SciCom. This study shows that scientists want to engage in SciCom, but they face challenges and have concerns that are not necessarily addressed by the SciCom training offered. The latter is important because most SciCom engagement frameworks (e.g., motivational or contextual models, such as “the knowledge deficit model” and “the public engagement or participation model” (Simis et al., 2016; Tayeebwa et al., 2022)) tend to focus on predicting how non-experts might receive, perceive, and react to SciCom output (Tayeebwa et al., 2022), which overlooks the views and perceptions of those engaging in SciCom. Thus, to increase engagement, scientists’ experiences with and views on SciCom must be considered when developing future communication training.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

This interview guide was used for the semi-structured interviews (Please note that deviations occurred due to the conversational style of the interview.).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mick Finlay and Nic Gibson for their expert advice.

Author Note

All authors have read the final manuscript draft and approved it for submission.

ORCID iDs

Katrine K. Donois

Esben W. Carey

Ethical Considerations

The study received full ethical approval from the School Research Ethics Panel (SREP) at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and complies with the General Data Protection Requirement, the 2018 Data Protection Act, and the British Psychological Society’s ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research (BPS, 2021). All interviews were audio-recorded, and the participants gave their consent to take part (and be recorded) before each interview. A debrief was provided. Additionally, written informed consent was obtained for anonymized information to be published. No personal data was collected; however, one must be aware that “innocent” data (such as age, job position, and gender) can allow for the identification of a person when combined. Due to the sample size, the contested nature of the topics, as well as the specificity of where the participants were recruited, individual information about age, gender, and job position will therefore not be disclosed, as these details could compromise anonymity.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abramoff

(2023). I’m a scientist who spoke up about climate change. My employer fired me. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/opinion/scientist-fired-climate-change-activism.html

Akin

Rodgers

Schultz

(2021). Science communication training as information seeking and processing: A theoretical approach to training early-career scientists. Journal of Science Communication, 20(05), A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20050206

Altenmüller

M. S.

Wingen

Schulte

(2024). Explaining polarized trust in scientists: A political stereotype-approach. Science Communication, 46(1), 92–115.

Anderson

(2020). Opinion: Being scientists doesn’t make us science communicators. https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-being-scientists-doesnt-make-us-science-communicators–68294

Bader

Imam

Alnees

Adler

Ilia

Zugayar

Dan

Khalaileh

(2024). Successful management of an Iatrogenic portal vein and hepatic artery injury in a 4-month-old female patient: A case report and literature review. Radiology Case Reports, 19(6), 2106–2111.

Banks

(2009). Starting science in the vernacular. Notes on some early issues of the Philosophical Transactions and the journal des Sçavans, 1665-1700. ASp, 55(55), 5–22.

Beniermann

Mecklenburg

Upmeier

Belzen

(2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(9), 522.

Bingham

A. J.

(2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231183620.

Birn

(1965). Le Journal des Savants sous l’ancien régime [The Journal of Scholars under the old regime]. Journal des savants, 1(1), 15–35.

10.

Biyela

Dihal

Gero

K. I.

Ippolito

Menczer

Schäfer

M. S.

Yokoyama

H. M.

(2024). Generative AI and science communication in the physical sciences. Nature Reviews Physics, 6(3), 162–165.

11.

BPS (British Psychological Society). (2021). Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research | BPS - British Psychological Society. Explore.bps.org.uk. https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report-guideline/bpsrep.2021.rep155

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

13.

Braun

Clarke

(2021a). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2021b). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2021c). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216.

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3.

17.

Brownell

S. E.

Price

J. V.

Steinman

(2013). Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6.

18.

Bucchi

Trench

(Eds.) (2021). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. Routledge.

19.

Bunnell

Ryan

Kent

& CDC Office of Science and CDC Excellence in Science Committee. (2021). Toward a new strategic public health science for policy, practice, impact, and health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 111(8), 1489–1496.

20.

Buschow

Noster

Hettwer

Lich-Knight

Zotta

(2024). Transforming science journalism through collaborative research: A case study of the German “WPK Innovation Fund for Science Journalism”. Journal of Science Communication, 23(02), N02.

21.

Byrne

(2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412.

22.

Campbell

Owen

O’Prey

(2023). Erasure of labour: A critical analysis of appetite suppressant product marketing by Flat Tummy Co. Feminist Media Studies, 23(1), 37–53.

23.

Campbell

Orr

Durepos

Nguyen

Whitmore

Gehrke

Graham

Jack

(2021). Reflexive thematic analysis for applied qualitative health research. The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2011–2028.

24.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

Yuan

(2021). Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect? Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138

25.

Eise

(2019). What institutions can do to improve science communication. Nature, 10, 1–4.

26.

Fähnrich

Wilkinson

Weitkamp

Heintz

Ridgway

Milani

(2021). RETHINKING science communication education and training: Towards a competence model for science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 795198.

27.

Fischer

Schmid-Petri

(2023). “There really is a lot of shared understanding, but there are also differences”: Identity configurations in science communicators’ professional identity. Journal of Science Communication, 22(01), A07.

28.

Fortenberry

R. C.

(2018). Complete Science Communication: A Guide to connecting with scientists, journalists and the public. Royal Society of Chemistry.

29.

Fugard

A. J. B.

Potts

H. W. W.

(2015). Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: A quantitative tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(6), 669–684.

30.

Funk

Rainie

Page

(2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center, 29, 26–36.

31.

Gani

Arnal

Beattie

Hillier

Illingworth

Lanza

Mohadjer

Pulkkinen

Roop

Stewart

von Elverfeldt

Zihms

(2024). The shadowlands of science communication in academia—definitions, problems, and possible solutions. EGUsphere, 1–25.

32.

Hajdu

Simoneau

(2020). Communicating science in a policy context to a broader audience. In: Sucha

Sienkiewicz

(Eds.), Science for policy handbook (pp. 166–179). Elsevier.

33.

Hall

Harvey

L. A.

(2018). Qualitative research provides insights into the experiences and perspectives of people with spinal cord injuries and those involved in their care. Spinal Cord, 56(6), 527.

34.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723.

35.

Humm

Schrögel

Leßmöllmann

(2020). Feeling left out: Underserved audiences in science communication. Media and Communication, 8(1), 164–176.

36.

Hunter

(2016). The communications gap between scientists and public: More scientists and their institutions feel a need to communicate the results and nature of research with the public. EMBO Reports, 17(11), 1513–1515.

37.

Hyland-Wood

Gardner

Leask

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2021). Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–11.

38.

Illingworth

(2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, 70, 10–16.

39.

Johnson

J. L.

Adkins

Chauvin

(2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120.

40.

Jones

Leask

Brandenburg

de Wit

(2021). Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 330–347.

41.

Jones

Colusso

Reinecke

Hsieh

(2019, May). r/science: Challenges and opportunities in online science communication [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

42.

Judd

McKinnon

(2021). A systematic map of inclusion, equity and diversity in science communication research: Do we practice what we preach? Frontiers in Communication, 6, 744365.

43.

Kessler

S. H.

Schäfer

M. S.

Johann

Rauhut

(2022). Mapping mental models of science communication: How academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland understand and practice science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 711–731.

44.

Kondo

(1953). Michael Faraday. Scientific American, 189(4), 90–98.

45.

Kulkarni

(2013). Rethinking “Science” communication. Issues in Science and Technology, 30(1), 25–29.

46.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

47.

Lakomý

Hlavová

Machackova

(2019). Open Science and the science-society relationship. Society, 56, 246–255.

48.

Levy

(2023). Trolled in science: “Hundreds of hateful comments in a single day”. Nature. Nature Career Podcasts. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01399-x

49.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2024). Science communication in a diverse world. Journal of Science Communication, 23(05), Y01.

50.

Lobato

E. J. C.

Zimmerman

(2019). Examining how people reason about controversial scientific topics. Thinking & Reasoning, 25, 231–255.

51.

Loroño-Leturiondo

Davies

S. R.

(2018). Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 170–185.

52.

Lupia

(2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 14048–14054.

53.

Manyweathers

Taylor

Longnecker

(2020). Expertise and communicating about infectious disease: A case study of uncertainty and rejection of local knowledge in discourse of experts and decision makers. Journal of Science Communication, 19(04), A01.

54.

Marincola

(2006). Why is public science education important? Journal of Translational Medicine, 4(1), 7.

55.

Hmielowski

J. D.

(2022). Are you threatening me? Identity threat, resistance to persuasion, and Boomerang Effects in environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 16(2), 225–242.

56.

Mehrbani

Kinsella

(2019). Why we need to protect government scientists from political retaliation. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/why-we-need-protect-government-scientists-political-retaliation

57.

Metcalfe

(2022). Science communication: A messy conundrum of practice, research and theory. Journal of Science Communication, 21(07), C07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070307

58.

Miller

B. L.

(2020). Science denial and COVID conspiracy theories: Potential neurological mechanisms and possible responses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(22), 2255–2256.

59.

Morgan

Collins

W. B.

Sparks

G. G.

Welch

J. R.

(2018). Identifying relevant anti-science perceptions to improve science-based communication: The negative perceptions of science scale. Social Science, 7(4), 64.

60.

Naeem

Ozuem

Howell

Ranfagni

(2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231205789.

61.

Nisbet

Markowitz

E. M.

(2014). Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PLoS One, 9(2), e88473.

62.

Nisbet

M. C.

Markowitz

(2016). Science communication research: Bridging theory and practice. American Association for the Advancement of Science.

63.

Nölleke

Leonhardt

B. M.

Hanusch

(2023). “The chilling effect”: Medical scientists’ responses to audience feedback on their media appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science, 32(5), 546–560.

64.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.

65.

Olusanya

O. A.

Ideh

D. A.

(2017). Diversification of the Nigerian Economy: Creating a partnership between Town and Gown. Unilag Journal of Humanities, 4(2), 50–64.

66.

Rekker

(2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368.

67.

Richter

Thøgersen

Klöckner

C. A.

(2018). A social norms intervention going wrong: Boomerang effects from descriptive norms information. Sustainability, 10(8), 2848.

68.

Rödder

(2011). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(Eds.), The sciences’ media connection–public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155–177). Springer.

69.

Rose

K. M.

Markowitz

E. M.

Brossard

(2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(3), 1274–1276.

70.

Rubega

M. A.

Burgio

K. R.

MacDonald

A. A. M.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

Capers

R. S.

Wyss

(2021). Assessment by audiences shows little effect of science communication training. Science Communication, 43(2), 139–169.

71.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(4), 13585–13592.

72.

Schmid-Petri

Bienzeisler

Beseler

(2022). Effects of politicization on the practice of science. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 188(1), 45–63.

73.

Schneider

Heinecke

(2019). The need to transform science communication from being multi-cultural via cross-cultural to intercultural. Advances in Geosciences, 46, 11–19.

74.

Silver

N. A.

Kierstead

E. C.

Briggs

Schillo

(2022). Charming e-cigarette users with distorted science: A survey examining social media platform use, nicotine-related misinformation and attitudes towards the tobacco industry. BMJ Open, 12(6), e057027.

75.

Simis

M. J.

Madden

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

(2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414.

76.

Smith

C. N.

Seitz

H. H.

(2019). Correcting misinformation about neuroscience via social media. Science Communication, 41(6), 790–819.

77.

Tayeebwa

D. W.

Wendo

D. C.

Nakiwala

D. A. S.

(2022). Theories and models of science communication. In Wendo

(Ed.), Science communication skills for journalists: A resource book for Universities in Africa (pp. 14–22). CABI.

78.

Terry

Hayfield

(2020). Reflexive thematic analysis. In Ward

M. R. M.

Delamont

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 430–441). Edward Elgar Publishing.

79.

Terry

Hayfield

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. In Willig

Rogers

W. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (Vol. 2, p. 25).

80.

Tollefson

(2024). Exclusive: The Trump administration demoted this climate scientist - Now she wants reform. Nature, 632(8023), 13–15. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02213-y

81.

Trench

(2017). Universities, science communication and professionalism. Journal of Science Communication, 16(05), C02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050302

82.

Valiverronen

Saikkonen

(2021). Science communicators intimidated: Researchers’ freedom of expression and the rise of authoritarian populism. Journal of Science Communication, 20(04), A08.

83.

Vittu

J. P.

(2002). La formation d’une institution scientifique: le Journal des Savants de 1665 à 1714 [The formation of a scientific institution: The Journal des Savants from 1665 to 1714]. Journal des savants, 2(1), 349–377.

84.

Wang

M. L.

Britton

O. J.

Beard

(2023). The call for science communication and public scholarship. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 13(3), 156–159.

85.

Washburn

Essary

Irlbeck

Gibson

Akers

(2022). Foreseen demands for up-and-coming science communicators and recommendations for science communication training programs. Journal of Applied Communications, 106(2), 1.

86.

Webb

R. M.

Kurtz

(2022). Politics v. Science: How President Trump’s war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 188(1), 65–80.

87.

Wilkinson

(1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(5), 493–502.

88.

Willoughby

S. D.

Johnson

Sterman

(2020). Quantifying scientific jargon. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 634–643.

Communicating Contested Science in a Polarized World: Scientists’ Views on Science Communication

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Design and Participants

Analytical Process

Results

T1: When the Gown Meets the Town: The Importance of Communicating Research to the General Public

T2: Science in the Media: Working with Journalists

T3: Science Communication and an Academic Career: Benefits and Drawbacks

T4: Scientists’ Views on Science Communication Training

T5: Main Issues Hindering Effective Science Communication

Discussions and Conclusions

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Acknowledgements

Author Note

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References