Filter by keyword: Science communication: theory and models

In this essay, we draw on the existing literature to discuss the roles for emotions in science communication. There is a widespread perception that emotions are detrimental to quality, particularly as a threat to the objectivity of science. This paper challenges this view by discussing the potential positive and negative effects of emotions on both the producers and recipients of science communication. Additionally, we outline the motivational and heuristic functions of emotions. Finally, we consider the place and roles for emotions in different models of science communication. The essay aims to support both producers and recipients of science communication in reflecting on their own emotions and the emotions of their counterpart.

A substantial body of empirical research identifies participatory models of science communication as best practice for achieving social, ethical, or governance objectives, particularly where dialogue, inclusion and public influence are central. At the same time, storytelling has emerged as a widely used strategy for engaging audiences with scientific issues, helping audiences make informed decisions, and shaping community attitudes and behaviours regarding science-related topics. Drawing on narrative studies, this essay examines how storytelling contributes to audience engagement through processes such as narrative transportation, simulation, and p-responses. It argues that reading or listening to stories is not a passive activity, and that these forms of audience engagement can be understood as interpretive and affective involvement. Storytelling does not always support participation in the dialogic or co-productive sense (typically associated with participatory science communication), but it can always support some of the aims of participatory approaches, such as fostering reflection, empathy, and relevance. While remaining analytically distinct from participatory practices that involve audience input and influence, it plays a valuable and complementary role in science communication by enhancing audience accessibility and resonance.

This theoretical article introduces academic saviourism as a concept that explains how inclusion efforts in science communication can at times unintentionally reproduce epistemic hierarchies, and end up being symbolic rather than transformative. Building on theories like Bourdieu's habitus, Archer et al.'s science capital, and Critical Race Studies' perspectives on the White Savior Industrial Complex, I draw out three interrelated manifestations of academic saviourism: (1) affective burdens on marginalised individuals, (2) the performative inclusion practices of science communication institutions, and (3) the underlying normative assumptions that shape how science communication actors understand marginalised communities' needs and participation.

Science communication experiences major transitions: alongside science journalists, scientists, their institutions, and public relations departments increasingly select and communicate science information to publics, thereby stepping into gatekeeping roles. To better understand this “shared gatekeeping” and how different science communicators select topics, this article investigates relevance criteria that guide selection and communication decisions of science information. Drawing on 57 interviews with German-speaking science journalists, science public relations practitioners, and scientists, the study identifies and compares relevance criteria for each group based on the hierarchy of influences model. Findings reveal a wide range of relevance criteria as well as similarities and differences at individual, communication routines, organizational, and social institutional levels. Although all groups seem to be guided by similar, partly journalistic, relevance criteria (e.g., overlapping goals, topic characteristics), they operate within distinct professional contexts and thus weigh these criteria differently.

This state-of-the-art literature review advances the shift in science communication research towards an organisational perspective, moving focus from individual researchers' capabilities to the role of organisational structures and practices. It explores how temporary collaborative research organisations, such as research projects, organise their activities, and examines the link between organisational structuring and science communication. Offering a structured overview, the review identifies research gaps and contributes to systematising the field by proposing a conceptual framework that integrates the communicative constitution of organisations (CCO) theory with institutional approaches to science communication. The literature reveals three key organisational dimensions: contextual conditions, cooperation, and communication. In addition to previously recognised components of `organisationality' — actorhood, identity, and interconnected decision-making — contextual conditions are also shown to play a role in organising in temporary research organisations. The theoretically driven framework supports the defragmentation of the research field and provides a foundation for future inquiry.

This response to the commentary “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” argues that the field would benefit from more attention to the persuasion literature, not less. A primary element of this argument is that a nuanced understanding of persuasion research can provide opportunities to achieve a wide range of goals — including empowering others — in ethical, evidence-based ways.

Publisher's note: this letter refers to Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment

This study investigates how specific narrative elements, termed narrative depth, influence perceived story quality, transportation, and topic interest in science communication. Using structural equation modelling and experimental group comparisons, we examined the relationships between vivid imagery, protagonist emotions and motivations, and narrative engagement. Results showed that while narrative depth did not significantly impact perceived story quality, transportation emerged as a key mediator between perceived quality and topic interest. Additionally, women and individuals with higher education reported greater transportation and topic interest. These findings provide important insights into factors that influence the potency of stories in the context of science communication.

Public engagement with science has gained institutional prominence while remaining conceptually fragmented and difficult to operationalise. This review evaluates Public Engagement with Science by Angela Potochnik and Melissa Jacquart as a field-level intervention addressing this condition. The book offers an interdisciplinary, pedagogically grounded framework for understanding, designing, and institutionalising public engagement. More steps regarding its theorization can be made, but the plentitude of strengths lies in conceptual integration and practical design.

This essay proposes terroir as a metaphor for rethinking science communication. In contrast to dominant calls for a science of science communication, grounded in broadly replicable and generalisable methods, we suggest that communication practices are fundamentally shaped by the particularities of place, people, histories, and more-than-human relations. Drawing on the agricultural origins of terroir, we argue that good science communication is not about imposing control but about cultivating resonance within specific ecosystems of meaning. This perspective also invites us to recognise the value of intuitive knowledge, local practice, and arts-based methods, which are often excluded from dominant frameworks. As part of the research programme Addressing Sustainability with Arts-Based Science Communication, we explore co-creative, arts-based approaches that surface emotional, sensory, and contextual dimensions of sustainability science communication. Ultimately, we call for a shift: from the search for universal best practices to the careful, situated crafting of an arts of science communication.

This paper proposes a framework to guide cross-national, comparative research on science communication. Current research often relies on ad-hoc criteria for selecting countries (such as geographic proximity) or on pragmatic considerations (like data availability), which may limit the ability to capture broader contexts or identify the cases best suited for analysis. Drawing on the ecosystems concept, we integrate theoretical perspectives on political systems, academic systems, and media systems to identify a set of ideational and structural factors that are essential for understanding country variations in science communication: political system settings, the role of the state/market, political attention to science communication, and societal values and norms. Based on these, we suggest (and preliminarily illustrate) a typology of four ideal-types of science communication ecosystems — public-service-oriented, market-oriented, state-centred and fragmented — that could guide and should be tested in future research.