Evidence from the TRESCA Citizen Science Communication Workshops, an experiment on pre- and post-audio perception of video mediated scientific communication. By Chiara Lovati and Giuseppe Pellegrini, Observa Science in Society Citizens find it increasingly difficult to choose between the growing number of science communication sources and discern trustworthy and reliable information from fake news. But there are some elements that science communicators can pay attention to and ensure that their message gets across as effectively as possible.In a series of science communication workshops organised by TRESCA in December 2020 in Austria, Italy and the Netherlands, researchers were able to test the perceptions of regular citizens on scientific communication. Their methodological design made it possible to explore the effects of visual and audio elements on news trustworthiness and emotional response and identify strategies that can improve and make science communication more effective in these times of uncertainty. Figure 1: A segment of TRESCA workshop participants from Italy The workshops preparation included steps such as the definition of an engagement strategy for citizens, the training of the moderators, and the selection of the two videos to be shown to participants. In this last step, two very different videos were chosen. The first one was a very fast paced, chaotic, YouTube style video with the aim to debunk Covid-19 related conspiracy theories, while the second video was a journalistic report on ex-Covid-19 patients stories, with a newscast style. The session began with an introductory speech about the TRESCA project and the activity of the day, partakers were then invited to join breakout rooms to continue the meeting in small groups. Citizens here viewed the two videos without audio and had a first discussion round on their impressions and emotional response. Following, after a small break, everyone watched the two videos again with the original audio and subtitles in the respective languages. Participants debated the credibility of the information communicated, the roles and responsibilities of the different people appearing in the videos and the impact of their emotions on how the message was being received. The comparison between participants’ reactions to the videos with and without sound helped the TRESCA team focus on the impact of images and words on participants’ perceptions of the science communication videos. Figure 2: TRESCA workshop design Researchers were able to draw some interesting conclusions from the experiment. Firstly, it is important to develop a communication style that is suitable to different types of audiences and use emotional language with caution. Science communicators should avoid extreme or contradictory positions when presenting topics, or excessive simplifications, to prevent viewers from distrusting the communicator or communication channel, and therefore rejecting the content. Secondly, to create successful forms of engagement with the public, it is better to avoid polarisations and disputes where possible. Workshops data also suggests the public is able to judge and evaluate information, therefore, science communicators should not appear to have an attitude of superiority and arrogance, and to avoid a ‘deficit model’ approach when explaining scientific findings to citizens. Figure 3: PCMAG.com, “No, 5G is not causing Coronavirus (or anything else), still from Workshop video #1 Trust in science and scientific institutions is not as straightforward as one may think. Trust is actually the result of a process rooted in previous experiences and attitudes and it cannot be changed very easily. It is crucial to create spaces for people to freely build their own knowledge and opinions. Furthermore, context varies greatly across languages and cultures, causing at times some unintended references and issues to arise in some communications, this should also be kept in mind when transmitting scientific news. Figure 4: Photo by Matheus Bertelli, from Pexels There are no easy solutions to avoiding disinformation and the dissemination of fake news. However, a powerful tool in the fight against misinformation could be fact checking apps and platforms. Nevertheless, these do not seem to be popular amongst the public: sometimes because of an accessibility issue, perhaps cultural or social, other times because they are just ignored. Indeed, for the time being, these tools are not particularly practical, but more research is being conducted – especially in the TRESCA project – to surpass these issues. Figure 5: Photo by Pixabay, via Pexels Effective scientific communication requires a time-consuming group effort by researchers, scientists, and communicators to consolidate best practices and shared knowledge. Nonetheless, effective scientific communication can certainly be mastered. Summarising, data from the workshops highlighted how important it is to avoid extremisms when discussing scientific findings, especially highly emotional language, excessive simplifications or contradictory positions. Furthermore, these workshops demonstrated the importance of maintaining contact with the public in order to detect a very useful point of view for the development of better communication. It is also crucial to steer clear of patronizing language or an attitude of superiority, while always trying to create spaces for the members of the public to freely build their knowledge and opinions.
By Asher van der Schelde, Marina Tulin, and Jay Lee, Erasmus University Rotterdam How do you stay informed about what is happening in the world? Chances are social media play a crucial role. This is not entirely surprising as science communication increasingly occurs via platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. Nonetheless, we know little about how viewers perceive, trust, or judge, this type of science communication. In this study, we tried to bridge this knowledge gap by running a survey experiment using a science communication video by the popular animation studio Kurzgesagt (In a Nutshell). The experiment focused on climate change. Despite the vast majority of scientists agreeing that humans have a (lasting) impact on climate change, a fraction of the population does not believe in the existence of the phenomenon, or its man-made cause. As a consequence, science communication experts face the critical, yet difficult, task of increasing public understanding, and stimulating engagement within this group of skeptics. The Kurzgesagt video we used is called “Who is responsible for climate change? – Who needs to fix it?”. As the title suggests, the video revolves around climate change and which countries should take responsibility in countering this worrying development. Figure 1: Screenshot from the Kurzgesagt video “Who Is Responsible For Climate Change? – Who Needs To Fix It?” We split up this video in three chapters to which we made several manipulations (e.g., the gender of the narrator, textual changes). After watching one chapter, respondents answered how they perceived the video in terms of trustworthiness, reliability, engagement, and entertainment. This allowed us to understand whether small changes in the video affect the overall perceptions of the video. Respondents also answered how they perceived the narrator, the overall production and what they thought the primary aim of the video was, which produced interesting insights as well. Positive perceptions First, it is important to mention that the video was perceived very positively. Respondents deemed the video to be trustworthy, reliable, engaging and entertaining (Figure 2). They were also positive towards the female and male narrator. The narrators were perceived to be similar in terms of warmth and trustworthiness, but the male narrator was perceived to be more competent (Figure 3). This result can reflect some underlying gender bias and would require further analysis to disentangle cultural and individual effects. Figure 2: Video perceptions. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree (with 95% CI). Figure 3: Narrator perceptions by gender (F = female, M = male). 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree (with 95% CI). Trustworthiness and entertainment go hand-in-hand Science communicators can be hesitant to communicate insights in an entertaining way as they fear this might harm the trustworthiness of the message. Our analysis indicates this fear is not grounded in reality. Respondents who perceived the video to be entertaining, were more likely to say the video was also trustworthy, reliable and engaging. As a consequence, quality and entertainment should not be treated as a trade-off. On the contrary: they go hand-in hand. All correlations between the video and narrator perceptions are illustrated in table 1. Table 1: Correlations between video and narrator perceptions Perceived aim matters One of the most striking findings is the effect of perceived aim on the overall perception of the video. When respondents believe the aim of the video is to blame, they perceive the video to be less trustworthy. Some of these respondents commented that the video was ‘quite brain washing’ or ‘seemed to be aimed at children’. Therefore, science communicators should make sure their message does not come across as such. On the contrary, respondents that indicated the video aimed to inform, rated the video higher on trustworthiness than those who did not. The same goes for changing behaviour, which is a remarkable finding, as this suggests that science communicators do not have to obscure their beliefs if they feel strongly about a certain topic and want to make a change. The significant effects of perceived aim on trustworthiness are displayed in figure 4. Figure 4: Perceived trustworthiness by perceived aim. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree (with 95% CI). Production value serves a proxy for overall perception When production value was perceived to be high, the video and narrator were perceived more positively. By perceived production value we mean the extent to which viewers believe that the video is of high quality regarding technical aspects, such as quality of resolution, professional voice-over, recording quality, sound design, detail of illustrations, or smoothness of animation. Perceived production value possibly serves as a heuristic that viewers use as a proxy for their overall perception of the video. Viewers project good intentions onto the creators and give them the benefit of the doubt. Figure 5: Perceived trustworthiness, engagement and entertainment value separated by perceived production value. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree (with 95% CI). Effects of manipulations We incorporated several manipulations to see if they would affect perceptions of the video. Through a check in the survey, we found that a substantial part of the participants had not noticed or remembered the manipulations. In hindsight, this is unsurprising as most manipulations were made in the narrative while humans tend to be more focused on visual information. Running a separate analysis in which we only included respondents who did notice and remember the manipulation did result in more significant findings. For example: participants who remembered that negative consequences of climate change for Europe (instead of worldwide) were mentioned, were more engaged with the video (leaving a comment about the video was coded as engagement). Since all respondents reside in the UK, this illustrates the human tendency to be more concerned by local developments. Similarly, engagement was greater among the respondents who watched (and remembered) the video that contained a fearful message than among those who were provided with a hopeful message. Figure 6: Differences in engagement by remembered manipulation. X-axis corresponds to proportion of respondents in group who engaged (i.e., left a comment) with the video (with 95% CI). Besides more engagement, the ‘fearful message’ also resulted in a decrease in the narrator’s perceived warmth. Thus, ending on a positive note results in a warmer perception of the narrator. This difference is depicted in Figure 7. Figure 7: Differences in perceived warmth by message. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree (with 95% CI). Communicate uncertainty! Science is often uncertain. However, science communicators might fear that communicating these uncertainties will confuse people. We did not find significant negative effects of using uncertain terms (e.g., approximately and presenting numbers in ranges) on the video’s perceived trustworthiness, reliability, engagement, and entertainment. This indicates that science communicators can be honest about presenting uncertain findings. Audience matters Finally, we found that science communicators should be well aware who they are targeting as climate change attitudes affect how the videos are perceived. For example: the inclusion of prominent sources enhances engagement, but this effect is muted for those who ‘believe’ more in climate change. This leads us to believe that this group is not fond of “over-the-top” stimuli. Similarly, climate change deniers are more likely to perceive the video as less trustworthy when the narrator uses uncertain terms in comparison to believers. In sum, the public tends to be informed (sometimes falsely) about many scientific topics. As such, people have already formed their opinions. Consequently, science communicators need to be aware they are reaching out to an already informed, and critical audience. The next TRESCA objective will be to produce a new video with Kurzgesagt on the history of rationality, and different aspects of human reasoning. Valuable insights that were gained in this experiment will be used to improve the video. Keep an eye on the TRESCA website and the YouTube channel of Kurzgesagt-In a nutshell for the video release (expected in September 2021).
By Pamela Bartar and Gábor Szüdi, Zentrum für Soziale Innovation The sudden outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic – to give an example that affected all our lives – was a drastic reminder of the importance of science communication. Scientists and researchers, policymakers, journalists or media and citizens etc. can attest that measures to contain the spread of the virus will only be socially accepted if the communication between these stakeholders is effective. To increase the likelihood that quality scientific findings and advice are taken into consideration during the policy-making process, science communication can play an important role. Tackling the need to strengthen scientists and researchers being important voices of evidence, TRESCA produced an online survey for scientists and recently finished analysing the results this online survey about scientists’ motivations to engage with scholarly communication (or science inreach) and in science communication (science outreach) addressed to public, politics, media or further stakeholders. These findings will now open a conversation about ways to align current incentives to foster academic and scientific excellence with new methods and instruments better able to acknowledge the important social role science and scientific information plays in current times. Figure 1: Example of participant recruitment through Twitter By analysing the results of the TRESCA online survey on the “Engagement in Science Communication Across Europe”, which was aimed to scientists and researchers from all disciplines during the summer in 2020 and complemented by desk research on four academic contexts including Austria, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands, two major narratives on (pre-)conditions became visible. Considering these fundamental feedbacks gained by the TRESCA survey, the conclusions in this blog offer a set of starting points for better science communication, especially to improve conditions and infrastructure for young scientists and beyond an early phase of their career. In figure 2, an overview of respondents per country is shown. Figure 2: Survey respondents of per country (%) Lack of Time as Main Culprit?The present incentive systems still strongly rely on scientific publications as a measure of scientific excellence. And despite its importance, a “lack of time” and “resources” to communicate these findings to non-academic audiences limits the capacity of science to produce a positive effect on society. Some disadvantaged groups, such as female scientists and young scholars, can feel pressured to demonstrate their scientific excellence and be discouraged from engaging in important science communication outreach activities. From the survey results, it’s interesting to note that financial support does not seem to be an important factor to engage with science communication. Figure 3: Main challenges and reasons for NOT participating in science communication according to the survey respondents Balancing Scientific and Societal (Impetus and) ImpactTo further elaborate, not only the excellence of science, but the impact of science on society needs to be better acknowledged alongside the career of a scientist and during the PhD training process. For example, taking public relations and communication courses during the PhD can greatly improve a scientist’s self-confidence and communication effectiveness, which are transferable skills that are always useful. Regarding indicators of scientists’ engagement with outreach science communication activities, it is important to remember that in the current digital media environment, these information are already available and considered in the elaboration of altmetrics indicators under development, and that are trying to improve accuracy of more traditional scientometric indicators. Intensifying Public Engagement Through Interactive Science CommunicationMore interactive forms of science outreach could be beneficial and help scientists and citizens (and other stakeholders) to collaborate better with each other. Seemingly less known- and more expensive – science outreach formats such as science festivals and cafés, and specific types of citizen science engagement projects (putting a focus on those projects involving citizens not only as data collectors), if promoted, could help satisfy the need of researchers for higher visibility and feedback about the relevance and impact of their research. Female Power for Science Communication and Societal Impact NeededFemale scientists were perceived as a underrepresented group in science communication, was the finding in the TRESCA study. Although of course, the visibility of women in science and academia also depends on the field. Many respondents mentioned that women get some visibility only after reaching a certain level, generally higher career position, which is a problem that affects young female researchers. Based on the TRESCA findings, women tend to give less importance to science outreach than men, which could lead to their early research success going unnoticed. The underlying (institutional, scientific, cultural) reason of this phenomenon should be explored and tackled: if women realise early on the value of science communication and participate in science outreach more frequently and successfully. This might help to break the “glass ceiling” in certain countries and scientific fields and offer role models to young girls and motivate them to learn more about science. From a future of science standpoint, we may claim that the problem of a limited visibility for young researchers, women in particular, bring several drawbacks. Having more young researchers active in science communication outreach activities would help increase the scientific literacy and bring awareness of science to younger generations, who would feel more empowered by seeing role models. To compensate activities in outreach, one example of good science communication is prizes and awards that could be given on a merit basis to CVs of early career scientists.