Filter by keyword: Public engagement with science and technology

Publications including this keyword are listed below.

306 publications found

Apr 14, 2025 Editorial

Science communication in the age of artificial intelligence

by Sabrina Heike Kessler, Daniela Mahl, Mike S. Schäfer and Sophia C. Volk

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming science communication. This editorial for the JCOM Special Issue “Science Communication in the Age of AI” explores the implications of AI, especially generative AI, for science communication, its promises and challenges. The articles in this Special Issue can be categorized into four key areas: (1) communication about AI, (2) communication with AI, (3) the impact of AI on science communication ecosystems, and (4) AI’s influence on science, theoretical and methodological approaches. This collection of articles advances empirical and theoretical insight into AI’s evolving role in science communication, emphasizing interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives.

Volume 24 • Issue 02 • 2025 • Science 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 and 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 24 • Issue 02 • 2025 • Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Apr 14, 2025 Essay

All Eyez on AI: A Roadmap for Science Communication Research in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

by Sabrina Heike Kessler, Daniela Mahl, Mike S. Schäfer and Sophia C. Volk

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is profoundly reshaping the field of science communication research. We conducted a literature review of 35 articles published between 2002 and 2024, which reveals that research on AI in science communication is still in its infancy but growing, predominantly concentrated in Western contexts, and methodologically inclined toward quantitative approaches. The field largely focuses on communication about AI and public perceptions of AI rather than analyzing actual engagement with generative AI or its systemic impact on science communication ecosystems. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda centered on four key areas: (1) communication about AI, (2) communication with AI, (3) the impact of AI on science communication ecosystems, and (4) AI’s influence on science, theoretical and methodological approaches.

Volume 24 • Issue 02 • 2025 • Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Science Communication & AI)

Apr 02, 2025 Book Review

Rethinking how we think about AI and common sense

by Ehsan Nabavi

`AI and Common Sense: Ambitions and Frictions' critically examines the claim of AI with common sense, a notion often assumed in human intelligence but highly debated in machine learning. The book offers a multifaceted exploration, questioning whether common sense is essential for AI and its broader implications for society and the future of technology. Spanning technical, philosophical, and social perspectives, it invites readers to rethink common sense and its role in shaping future AI conversations in society.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Mar 17, 2025 Article

Citizens' perspectives on science communication

by Ionica Smeets, Charlotte B. C. M. Egger, Sicco de Knecht, Anne M. Land-Zandstra, Aletta Lucia Meinsma, Ward Peeters, Sanne Romp, Julie Schoorl, Winnifred Wijnker and Alex Verkade

The evolving landscape of science communication highlights a shift from traditional dissemination to participatory engagement. This study explores Dutch citizens' perspectives on science communication, focusing on science capital, public engagement, and communication goals. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines survey data (“n”=376) with focus group (“n”=66) insights. Findings show increasing public interest in participating in science, though barriers like knowledge gaps persist. Trust-building, engaging adolescents, and integrating science into society were identified as key goals. These insights support the development of the Netherlands' National Centre of Expertise on Science and Society and provide guidance for inclusive, effective science communication practices.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Mar 10, 2025 Article

Wit meets wisdom: the relationship between satire and anthropomorphic humor on scientists' likability and legitimacy

by Alexandra L. Frank, Michael A. Cacciatore, Sara K. Yeo and Leona Yi-Fan Su

We conducted an experiment examining public response to scientists' use of different types of humor (satire, anthropomorphism, and a combination of the two) to communicate about AI on Twitter/X. We found that humor led to increased perceptions of humor, measured as increased mirth. Specifically, we found that combining anthropomorphism and satire elicited the highest levels of mirth. Further, reported mirth was positively associated with the perceived likability of the scientist who posted the content. Our findings indicate that mirth mediated the effects of the humor types on publics' perceptions that the scientist on social media was communicating information in an appropriate and legitimate way. Overall, this suggests that scientists can elicit mirth by using combining satire and anthropomorphic humor, which can enhance publics' perceptions of scientists. Importantly, publics' responses to harsh satire were not examined. Caution should be exercised when using satire due to potential backfire effects.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Mar 04, 2025 Book Review

Reviewed book: “The Science Media Interface: on the Relation Between Internal and External Science Communication”

by Laura Moorhead

The Science Media Interface explores how scientists and their institutions orient their research and publication criteria and processes towards those of journalists and media organizations as a way to gain public attention. The editors present an impressive range of methods, from bibliometrics, an adaptation of the Delphi method, ethnography, mixed-methods analysis, and the path analysis method.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Feb 17, 2025 Article

Exploring the dynamics of interaction about generative artificial intelligence between experts and the public on social media

by Noriko Hara, Eugene Kim, Shohana Akter and Kunihiro Miyazaki

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) greatly attracts the public's interest; thus, this research investigates discussions between experts and members of the public about this new technology on social media. Using computational and manual analysis of X (formerly Twitter) data, we investigated discussion topics, the roles discussants — including both experts and public — play, and the differences between experts' posts and the public's replies. Moreover, we examined the dynamics between the discussants' roles and social media engagement measures. We found that the public is not only actively contributing to the discussion of GenAI on X, but also becoming knowledge co-producers alongside experts in the sphere.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Feb 10, 2025 Book Review

Bridging the gap between scientists and the public: “Science v. Story”

by Douglas A. Levy

Emma Frances Bloomfield's “Science v. Story: Narrative Strategies for Science Communicators”, presents ways to improve science communication in the face of declining public trust. Bloomfield's work highlights the power of narrative, demonstrating how anti-science movements have effectively leveraged storytelling to popularize their messages. If scientists adopt narrative strategies, they can bridge the gap between the scholarly community and the public and make complex information more accessible and relatable. Bloomfield's approach provides a roadmap for navigating the complexities of science communication in an era where many people are swayed more by personal connection than credibility or facts.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Jan 20, 2025 Practice Insight

Co-creation in citizen science: sharing learnings and good practice from an indoor, airborne microplastics project

by Ana Margarida Sardo, Laura De Vito, Kirsty J. Pringle, Mark Hansen, Kathryn Lamb-Riddell, Sophie Laggan, Timothy Cox and Ben Williams

HOMEs was a citizen science exploratory project, aimed at investigating the presence of airborne microplastics in people's homes. Participants placed passive samplers in their homes, using low-cost microscopes to see and take pictures of their samples. The methods developed are promising, however there are a number of pitfalls to avoid and key considerations. This practice insight explores successful approaches and identifies barriers and limitations when embedding co-creation and participatory citizen science approaches to a research project. This piece focuses on the methods and engagement with participants, rather than on microplastics findings.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025