Filter by author: Lars Guenther

Aug 17, 2026 Article

Making science part of `The Conversation' — benefits and barriers experienced by researchers as authors writing for The Conversation Africa

by Dr Lili Rademan , Marina Joubert , Lars Guenther

As an online platform for scientists to share their expertise with diverse audiences within a journalistic context, The Conversation provides a novel link between science and society. This study examines the benefits and barriers experienced by researchers who write for the African edition of this platform. We analysed 3560 author profiles, 5392 articles, and conducted 21 interviews with authors. We found that authors were motivated mainly by moral duty but also wanted to enhance the policy impact of their work. Becoming an author was perceived as beneficial for visibility, networking, and career development. Key barriers included time constraints, concerns about oversimplification, and a lack of institutional rewards. Authors valued the editorial process that allowed them to initiate an article and control the final version before publication. The study contributes to understanding how researchers experience and engage with novel science communication platforms.

Volume 25Issue 62026

Apr 14, 2025 Article

“Away from this duty of chronicler and towards the unicorn”: how German science journalists assess their future with (generative) Artificial Intelligence

by Lars Guenther , Jessica Kunert , Bernhard Goodwin

The advent of generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) is expected to have a significant impact on journalism. In this study, we address whether this development could help mitigate the crisis in science journalism. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 German science journalists, asking them about the potential impact genAI may have on the news-making process (i.e., selection, production, and distribution). The results suggest that interviewees anticipate many future benefits associated with genAI, some believe that the technology is unlikely to worsen the crisis in science journalism, while others express concerns about potential negative consequences (e.g., job loss).

Volume 24Issue 022025Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Apr 14, 2025 Article

Exploring temporal and cross-national patterns: the use of generative AI in science-related information retrieval across seven countries

by Esther Greussing , Lars Guenther , Ayelet Baram-Tsabari , Shakked Dabran-Zivan , Evelyn Jonas , Inbal Klein-Avraham , Monika Taddicken , Torben Agergaard , Becca Beets , Dominique Brossard , Anwesha Chakraborty , Antoinette Fage-Butler , Chun-Ju Huang , Siddharth Kankaria , Yin-Yueh Lo , Lindsey Middleton , Kristian H. Nielsen , Michelle Riedlinger , Hyunjin Song

This study explores the role of ChatGPT in science-related information retrieval, building on research conducted in 2023. Drawing on online survey data from seven countries—Australia, Denmark, Germany, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States—and two data collection points (2023 and 2024), the study highlights ChatGPT’s growing role as an information intermediary, reflecting the rapid diffusion of generative AI (GenAI) in general. While GenAI adoption is a global phenomenon, distinct regional variations emerge in the use of ChatGPT for science-related searches. Additionally, the study finds that a specific subset of the population is more likely to use ChatGPT for science-related information retrieval. Across all countries surveyed, science-information seekers report higher levels of trust in GenAI compared to non-users. They also exhibit a stronger understanding of how (Gen)AI works and, with some notable exceptions, show greater awareness of its epistemic limitations.

Volume 24Issue 022025Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Mar 24, 2025 Article

Identifying trust cues: how trust in science is mediated in content about science

by Justin T. Schröder , Janise Brück , Lars Guenther

Most public audiences in Germany receive scientific information via a variety of (digital) media; in these contexts, media act as intermediaries of trust in science by providing information that present reasons for public audiences to place their trust in science. To describe this process, the study introduces the term “trust cues”. To identify such content-related trust cues, an explorative qualitative content analysis has been applied to German journalistic, populist, social, and other (non-journalistic) online media (“n” = 158). In total, “n” = 1,329 trust cues were coded. The findings emphasize the diversity of mediated trust, with trust cues being connected to dimensions of trust in science (established: expertise, integrity, benevolence; recently introduced: transparency, dialogue). Through this analysis, the study aims for a better understanding of mediated trust in science. Deriving this finding is crucial since public trust in science is important for individual and collective informed decision-making and crises management.

Volume 24Issue 012025

Dec 16, 2024 Editorial

Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

by Anne Reif , Lars Guenther , Hiromi M. Yokoyama

This special issue examines public (dis)trust in science amidst evolving digital media environments, marked by the increasing prevalence of online information sources about scientific topics such as climate change and COVID-19. This editorial summarizes the nine publications that are part of the special issue and shows how they address different aspects of public (dis)trust in science in the context of digital media environments. Furthermore, we reflect on the selection and production process and give an outlook as to where future research could be heading. The papers highlight various perspectives on (dis)trust in science in digital media environments to foster a deeper understanding of the role of digital communication.

Volume 23Issue 092024Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments (Trust in science)

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Intermediaries in the limelight: how exposure to trust cues in content about science affects public trust in science

by Lars Guenther , Justin T. Schröder , Anne Reif , Janise Brück , Monika Taddicken , Peter Weingart , Evelyn Jonas

A potential decline in public trust in science has often been linked to digital media environments, which serve as intermediaries of trust by providing cues for why (not) to trust science. This study examines whether exposure to trust cues in content affects public trust in science (across population groups). The study employs a mixed-method design, combining content analysis (“n” = 906) and panel survey data (“n” = 1,030) in Germany. The findings reveal that exposure to trust cues in certain media predicts public trust in science. Variations across trust groups indicate a nuanced nature of trust-assessing processes in digital media environments.

Volume 23Issue 092024Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments (Trust in science)

Oct 02, 2023 Article

Not here, not now, not me: how distant are climate futures represented in journalistic reporting across four countries?

by Lars Guenther , Michael Brüggemann

Among the reasons why climate change is not a major cause for concern for some members of the public is its psychological distance. Since journalistic media are important sources of information about climate change, this article analyzed how distant climate futures are portrayed in journalistic media across four countries (Germany, India, South Africa, and the United States; n=1,010). Findings show that there are only few differences across countries; representations of distance rather varied with the type of climate future scenario portrayed. The most frequent scenarios in journalistic reporting were distant — especially regarding the temporal, spatial, and social dimensions.

Volume 22Issue 052023

Jan 18, 2023 Article

`Pandem-icons' — exploring the characteristics of highly visible scientists during the Covid-19 pandemic

by Marina Joubert , Lars Guenther , Jenni Metcalfe , Michelle Riedlinger , Anwesha Chakraborty , Toss Gascoigne , Bernard Schiele , Ayelet Baram-Tsabari , Dmitry Malkov , Eliana Fattorini , Gema Revuelta , Germana Barata , Jan Riise , Justin T. Schröder , Maja Horst , Margaret Kaseje , Marnell Kirsten , Martin W. Bauer , Massimiano Bucchi , Natália Flores , Orli Wolfson , Tingjie Chen

The Covid-19 pandemic escalated demand for scientific explanations and guidance, creating opportunities for scientists to become publicly visible. In this study, we compared characteristics of visible scientists during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic (January to December 2020) across 16 countries. We find that the scientists who became visible largely matched socio-cultural criteria that have characterised visible scientists in the past (e.g., age, gender, credibility, public image, involvement in controversies). However, there were limited tendencies that scientists commented outside their areas of expertise. We conclude that the unusual circumstances created by Covid-19 did not change the phenomenon of visible scientists in significant ways.

Volume 22Issue 012023

Dec 14, 2022 Book Review

Put to the test: science communication in crisis situations

by Lars Guenther

Risk and crisis situations can put science communication to the test, but systematic approaches to science communication in relation to crisis communication are still missing. “Science communication in times of crisis”, edited by Pascal Hohaus and published in 2022, is about this relationship. The book review provides an overview, a summary, and a short criticism of this edited volume. As will be outlined, while the book is a valuable contribution to the field, its overall aims could have been more strongly tied together.

Volume 21Issue 072022

Jul 04, 2022 Commentary

Evidence in the eye of the beholder: portrayals of risk and scientific (un)certainty in ‘Don't look up’

by Lars Guenther , Lutz Granert

In this invited comment, we discuss portrayals of risk and scientific (un)certainty in ‘Don't look up’. Specific scenes of the movie were selected, to reflect how within and between the spheres of science, politics, journalism, and economics an upcoming risk and its scientific (un)certainty is (re-)interpreted and (re-)framed, in line with the respective sphere's logic. We extend our assessment by common criteria of film analysis and comparisons to climate change, where applicable. This comment emphasizes how in the movie the logic of economy is taken over by politics and journalism, and how it prevails over the logic of science.

Volume 21Issue 052022

Search results