Filter by section: Article

Publications included in this section.

522 publications found

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 L. 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

Feb 24, 2025 Article

"It's mostly a one-way street, to be honest": the subjective relevance of public engagement in the science communication of professional university communicators

by Kaija Biermann, Lennart Banse and Monika Taddicken

This study explores the subjective relevance and challenges of public engagement (PES) in science communication among professional university communicators based on 29 qualitative interviews in one German federal state. Despite recognizing its value, interviewees reveal significant uncertainties in understanding, objectives, and implementation of PES. They cite barriers such as reliance on scientists and control concerns. Surprisingly, social media is rarely considered for PES, with online engagement seen as difficult. This research highlights the complexities and challenges of PES in practice, emphasizing opportunities for optimized digital science communication strategies and clearer role structures between professionals and researchers to enhance PES.

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 04, 2025 Article

Can science comics aid lay audiences' comprehension of forensic science?

by Isabelle Baxter, Andy Ridgway, Heather Doran, Niamh Nic Daeid, Rachel Briscoe, Joe McAlister and Daniel Barnard

Forensic science has become a standard feature in criminal investigations and trials. However, it can often be a challenge for experts in courtrooms to communicate scientific evidence clearly to lay audiences through verbal expert witness testimony alone. The Evidence Chamber is an interactive experience engaging public audiences with forensic science through a mock trial. This study explores the effectiveness of using comics to support the understanding of forensic science by non-experts. The results suggest comics were effective at aiding the audiences' comprehension of forensic science evidence and in the future comic-based aids could support juries' comprehension of scientific evidence.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Dec 16, 2024 Article

How different science communicators use identity strategies to gain public trust: a study on astronomy and climate change issues on a Chinese knowledge sharing platform

by Zheng Yang, Yuanting Huang, Tao Yang and Taoran Yu

Science communication has seen a trend of diverse communicators in recent decades, who adopt different identity strategies to gain audience trust. This study focuses on the strategies used by three different groups of science communicators, including scientists, citizens and institutions, as well as the potential effects that may arise from these different strategies in terms of audience trust through quantitative content analysis. The findings show that communicators have biases towards using different strategies. There are also significant differences in the trust effects generated by different strategies used by different science communicators in different science topics. This indicates that the effect of science communication varies for different groups of science communicators and different science topics, and it is difficult to generate a universally applicable model, which further corresponds to the current trend of ‘diversification’ and ‘contextualization’ in science communication research.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

(Un)certainty in science and climate change: a longitudinal analysis (2014–2022) of narratives about climate science on social media in Brazil (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter)

by Roberta Lima, Andre L. Belem, Diógenes Lycarião, Thaiane Oliveira, Simone Evangelista, Luisa Massarani and Marcelo Alves

This article examines climate change discourse on Brazilian social media from 2014 to 2022 and use a longitudinal approach, analyzing discourse, scientific authority, and eco-emotions on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Methods include TF-IDF for feature extraction, sentiment analysis with VADER, and Named Entity Recognition (NER). A Ridge Classifier was trained on 557 manually classified samples. Findings show no significant increase in challenges to scientific authority or skepticism, but reveal a subtle shift towards using uncertainty as a rhetorical tool to undermine trust in scientific discourse.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

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 and 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 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Who, if not science, can you trust to guide you through a crisis? The relationship between public trust in science and exposure to established and alternative online sources in times of crisis

by Fabian Zimmermann, Christine Petersen and Matthias Kohring

In light of global crises such as COVID-19, we argue that people’s trust in science drives their media choices in the digital sphere. The results from a German online survey show that individuals who perceive scientists as trustworthy in terms of ability, benevolence, and integrity, confidently expect science to provide accurate knowledge and guide reasonable decision-making in times of crisis. In turn, these positive trusting expectations towards science increase the use of established journalistic and scientific online sources for accessing scientific information. In contrast, people with low or no trust in science tend to resort to the messenger Telegram and ‘alternative’ online media outlets. Interestingly, the individual need for orientation does not amplify this association between trust in science and digital media use in a crisis situation.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication

by Mike S. Schäfer, Bastian Kremer, Niels G. Mede and Liliann Fischer

Generative AI like ChatGPT has been diagnosed to fundamentally impact different realms of life. This includes science communication, where GenAI tools are becoming important sources of science-related content for many people. This raises the question of whether people trust GenAI as a source in this field, a question that has not been answered sufficiently yet. Adapting a model developed by Roberts et al. [2013] and utilizing survey data from the German Science Barometer 2023, we find that Germans are rather sceptical about and do not strongly trust GenAI in science communication. Structural equation modelling shows that respondents' trust in GenAI as a source in science communication is driven strongly by their general trust in science, which is largely driven by their knowledge about science and the perception that science improves quality of life.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments