In light of all challenges that come with connecting science and society, it is of great importance that scientists realize their ethical obligation to produce intelligible, factual information and to inform the public about relevant findings and research results. This should allow the public to make informed decisions based on science-based, reliable data and facts. Therefore, communication in the field has to be adequate in its form in order for people to be able to use the information that is being provided. To achieve this, universities and colleges need to better train scientists in the field of communicating their research to the public. Academics, policy makers and scientists have to come up with creative ways for effective media communication, building a collaborative environment between society and science.
Quelle: The Power of Science Communication, Jucan
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814050010
With the responsibility of the field of science communication comes much food for thought, especially with nowadays’ boom of science communication.
The following paragraphs will explore some of the challenges that have been arising with it in a couple of different fields.
Public Relations (PR)
Another challenge is the pressure on universities and research centers to perform in order to legitimize science funding in the eye of „public accountability“. Science is nowadays expected to be presented to the public, and these expectations have led to the original meaning of science communication (the reporting of research relevant to either practical issues and/or of educational pertinence) being sidetracked by the fixation on attention. Organizations tend to work in a „push-communication“ mode, communicating findings to the undifferentiated public. While this counts as science communication, since PR and press professionals take over some of the communication of the knowledge from their institution’s scientists (as institutions often employ PR specialists for controlling communication to the outside), this practice inevitably leads to science communication being influenced by the need to achieve certain purposes, such as building an image, branding, or marketing, resulting in a conflation of science communication with institutional propaganda.
Research centers and universities have been expanding their PR and press departments, creating another stakeholder group engaged in science communication (PR specialists and press officers) which is engaged specifically in academic institutional communication. Some institutions’ communication to the public has been taken over entirely by press officers, which in turn implies that PR is the superior method of science communication, and following the assumption that scientists themselves are not sufficiently capable to communicate with the public on an appropriate level and to leave this to communication professionals. If that would be the general practice, PR professionals would be taking over science communication to the general public and taking it away from the scientists themselves, as the public is thought to be receptive only to PR communication.
Source: Weingart, P. and Guenther, L. (2016). ‘Science communication and the issue of trust’. JCOM 15 (05), C01.
https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_1505_2016_C01/
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
Press work
Media communication is a key factor and press professionals carry the responsibility of supplying the public with information. Depending on how well this work is done, it can either have a positive influence and prevent damage, or it itself can be the cause of damage. In order to better understand the challenges, this paragraph will focus on an example concerned with public health emergencies. According to the WHO, press work done in such emergency situations needs to be able to improve knowledge and understanding of the situation and actively framing a story before others can do so, establish an institution as the main source of expertise, to prevent rumors and misinformation, and gain support for certain endeavors. Issues can arise when, for example, long lasting events such as the pandemic influenza in Germany lead to official sources not providing information at times, causing periods of time that are low in news. Such „empty spaces“ can be troublesome, as they tend to be filled with unofficial, misinformed and potentially damaging sources if official sources do not communicate.
On the other hand, however, sharing too much active information is also not always perceived well, as having a constant presence of an issue present in media outlets can lead to uncertainty within the public.
It is of great importance to communicate expert opinions that are reliable, and to decide very carefully, what should and has to be communicated to the public. Media outlets are multipliers, often defining the level of the public’s information. Information material that is created for media professionals, for example press releases, assessments of the situation or responses on frequently asked questions are often also being used by citizens and the professional public / expert audiences if they are available online. Often, press material is also the foundation for creating citizen information, and influence also the language used in such measures. Therefore, it needs to be recognized that there is a lot of responsibility falling to press and media professionals, especially when it comes to communicating swiftly.
Quelle: Sind wir gefährdet? Krisenkommunikation für ein Bundesinstitut auf dem Gebiet des Gesundheitsschutzes / Susanne Glasmacher
