THE SCIENCE-MEDIA INTERACTION IN HEALTH CARE Opinions of scientists and science journalists on participation in science communication activities.
Maaike M. Roefs
Master thesis Communication Studies University of Twente December 2011
THE SCIENCE-MEDIA INTERACTION IN HEALTH CARE Opinions of scientists and science journalists on participation in science communication activities.
Author: Student number: Study:
Maaike M. Roefs s0078085 Master Communication Studies Faculty of Behavioural Sciences University of Twente (UT)
Research performed at:
Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) Directorate of Communication
Graduation committee:
dr. A.M. Dijkstra dr. C.H.C. Drossaert
External supervisors LUMC:
drs. M.T. van ‘t Oever drs. O.I. Gort
Date:
December 19th, 2011
2
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………4 SAMENVATTING………………………………………………………....................5 1. BACKGROUND……………………………………………………......................6 2. INTRODUCTION……………….…………………………………………….........7 2.1 Science communication
7
2.2 Scientist-media interaction
8
2.3 Theory of planned behavior
10
2.4 Aim
12
3. METHODS…………………………………………………………………………13 3.1 Respondents
13
3.2 Instrument
13
3.3 Analysis
14
4. RESULTS…………………………………………………………….. …………...15 4.1 Sample characteristics
15
4.2 Behavior
16
4.3 Attitude
17
4.4 Subjective norm
21
4.5 Perceived control
26
4.6 Mediators
29
5. DISCUSSION………………………………………………................................32 5.1 Main conclusions
32
5.2 Recommendations
36
5.3 Limitations
36
6. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………........38 7. APPENDICES………………………………………………………...…………...40 7.1 Interview scheme scientist
40
7.2 Interview scheme journalist
44
3
ABSTRACT Science communication is important for a number of reasons. For example, it enhances awareness, understanding and enjoyment among the public. However, the sciencemedia interaction is often thought to be difficult and barriers are experienced. Research has been performed to investigate the relationship between science and the media, but often lacks an underlying theoretical framework and is limited to the scientists’ perspective only. A more precise understanding of the complex science-media interaction is needed. In this study salient beliefs about participation in science communication activities are explored, for both journalists and scientists, using the theory of planned behavior. Twenty-one scientists and fourteen science journalists were selected and interviewed. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the behavioral, normative and control beliefs regarding participation in science communication activities. In addition, respondents were asked about their previous experiences and behavior. Respondents’ beliefs were first arranged according to the theory of planned behavior and then analyzed and arranged into subthemes using an inductive process. Attitude and social norm appeared to be more relevant factors for scientists than they were for journalists. Attitudes were mainly positive for both groups, but the scientists’ fear for possible disadvantages is an important barrier. The peer pressure and criticism of colleagues were important normative beliefs for the scientists. Control beliefs regarding science communication were merely practical issues for the journalists, of which time pressure appeared to be the most important. Mediators are therefore often neglected by journalists, whereas scientists are often not aware of the activities and possible services of mediators. Enhancing the mutual understanding between the scientists and journalists may improve the science-media interaction. Scientists should be informed about how the journalists work and how news is made, and may benefit from a media training. Journalists, on the other hand, should be more aware and understanding about the hesitation and reluctance experienced by the scientists. Mediators can play an important role in improving this mutual understanding. Future quantitative studies are needed to further explore the beliefs regarding the science-media interaction.
4
SAMENVATTING
Wetenschapscommunicatie is belangrijk om een aantal redenen; het vergroot bijvoorbeeld bewustwording, begrip en plezier over wetenschap bij het publiek. De wetenschap-media interactie wordt echter als moeilijk beschouwd, deelnemers ervaren barrières. Hoewel onderzoeken zijn verricht naar de wetenschap-media interactie, richtten deze zich vaak enkel op de perceptie van de wetenschapper en wordt geen gebruik gemaakt van een theoretisch kader. Een preciezer beeld van de relatie tussen wetenschappers en journalisten en de factoren die daarin een rol spelen is nodig. Het doel van deze studie is daarom om de overtuigingen en meningen over wetenschapscommunicatie van zowel wetenschappers als journalisten te verkennen. Hierbij wordt gebruik gemaakt van de theorie van gepland gedrag. Eenentwintig wetenschappers en veertien journalisten zijn geselecteerd en geïnterviewd. Door middel van semigestructureerde interviews werden de opvattingen over
gedrag,
sociale
norm
en
controle
met
betrekking
tot
deelname
aan
wetenschapscommunicatie uitgevraagd. Daarnaast werd de respondenten gevraagd over hun ervaringen en gedrag. Uitkomsten werden gerangschikt met behulp van de theorie van gepland gedrag en vervolgens gegroepeerd in subthema’s en geanalyseerd. Overtuigingen over gedrag en sociale norm bleken meer belangrijk voor wetenschappers dan voor journalisten. De attitudes ten opzichte van deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie waren positief voor beide groepen. Echter, de vrees van wetenschappers voor mogelijke nadelen vormt een belangrijke barrière. Druk vanuit de omgeving en kritiek van collega-wetenschappers spelen hierin een rol. Overtuigingen over de controle bestonden bij journalisten voornamelijk uit praktische kwesties, met name tijdsdruk wordt als een belangrijke barrière ervaren. Mediatoren worden daarom vaak niet geraadpleegd. Wetenschappers waren daarentegen vaak niet voldoende op de hoogte van de activiteiten en diensten die mediatoren hen kunnen bieden. Het vergroten van het wederzijds begrip tussen wetenschappers en journalisten kan de wetenschap-media interactie verbeteren. Wetenschappers moeten op de hoogte zijn hoe de media werken en hoe nieuws wordt gemaakt. Journalisten zouden meer begrip moeten hebben voor de twijfels en reserves van wetenschappers. Mediatoren kunnen een belangrijke rol spelen in het verbeteren van deze relatie. Kwantitatief onderzoek is nodig om de overtuigingen over wetenschap-media interactie verder te verkennen.
5
1. BACKGROUND
Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) is one of the eight university medical centers in The Netherlands and employs almost 7000 people. The LUMC has five core activities: patient care, scientific research, education, study programs and continuing education; and aims for the top in performing its core tasks. The LUMC strives to offer high quality in medical technology and care in attention for its patients, over 100.000 patients visit the hospital per year. The hospital works in close cooperation with general hospitals in the Leiden area and performs an important public task in innovating health care and testing new medical technologies. One of the ambitions of the LUMC as stated in the Strategic Plan 2009-2013 (“Strategisch Plan”, 2009, p. 10) reads ‘Answering public questions by discoveries’ (‘Met ontdekkingen maatschappelijke vragen beantwoorden’). This implies public engagement and public understanding of science is an important aim. The LUMC wishes to contribute to and participate in the public debate. The Directorate Communication is involved in both the internal and external communication of the LUMC, and is therefore an important actor in fulfilling this ambition. Their task, among others, is to handle and organize press contacts and to mediate between scientists and (science) journalists. The LUMC’s communication specialists thus play an important role in mediating in the science-media interaction. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors influencing this relationship between science and the media, from both the scientists’ and science journalists’ perspective, which may be useful in improving science communication in general and within the organization. In this report, the current literature and theoretical framework will be explored first, after which the used theory is elaborated on and the research questions are defined. Subsequently, the methodology of this study is explained and the results are presented. Finally, the findings of this study are discussed and recommendations for future research and the practice are proposed.
6
2. INTRODUCTION This chapter gives an overview of the recent literature and performed research within the spectrum of this study. The current views on science communication and the sciencemedia interaction are discussed. The theory of planned behavior is used as the underlying theoretical framework of this study and will be explained in this chapter. The aims of this research are defined in the final paragraph.
2.1 Science communication Science communication can be defined as: ‘The use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-forming and understanding. Science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators and other members of the general public, either peer-to-peer or between groups’ (Burns, O’Connor & Stocklmayer, 2003). It is important that scientists are involved in science communication and public engagement activities for a number of reasons. First, science plays a key role in a number of issues facing global society, e.g. terrorism, sustainable development and health, and is often financed through public funds. Scientists are therefore obliged to share their findings. Second, there may be a discrepancy between the way that the media portrays science and the actual scientific findings. Third, science communication might change public’s perception of scientists and their activities and may lead to a more supportive public. Finally, science communication can be enjoyable for those who take part and may enrich peoples’ lives (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). In addition, public profile and favorable images are important to sustain public goodwill that may translate into higher citation counts and into funding for future research, which is not only important for the scientists themselves, but also for their organizations or research institutions (Bauer, Allum & Miller, 2007). Moreover, Willems (2003) notes that communication between fellow professionals often takes place through the mass media. Research on science communication and the public understanding of science is a relatively new and expanding research area. Paradigms of research regarding the public understanding of science are widely debated and changed over the past decades (Bauer et al., 2007). Whereas research previously focused on the deficits in public scientific literacy and knowledge (Miller, 1992), focus has shifted towards trust and credibility issues between science and society (Bauer et al., 2007) and scientists’
7
participation in a public debate and dialogue is becoming more important (Royal Society, 2006).
2.2 Science-media interaction The relationship between scientists and journalists is often considered to be difficult (Willems, 2003), but a recent mail survey among biomedical researchers showed that media contacts of scientists in top R&D countries are more frequent and smooth than previously thought (Peters, Brossard, Cheveigne, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller & Tsuchida, 2008a). This study of Peters et al. (2008a) showed that 70% of the respondents had interacted with the media in the past 3 years and that 75% rated their interactions as mainly good. Similar results were found in the study of the Royal Society (2006), where 74% of the scientists reported having taken part in at least one science communication or public engagement activity in the past year in the UK. In contrary, Jensen (2005) and Bentley & Kyvik (2011) found that popular publishing is extremely skewed; around 50% of all popular articles were published by only 3 to 5% of all academic staff. In an explanatory article by Peters et al. (2008b), it is noted the motivation of scientists to participate in science communication is high and participation is considered a necessity and duty. Legitimization of their research was mentioned as the major motive to participate in science communication activities (Peters, Brossard, Cheveigne, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller & Tsuchida, 2008b). However, barriers are encountered in the science-media relationship. A quantitative study by The Wellcome Trust (2000) among British scientists found that lack of public knowledge, education and interest in science is regarded the main barrier for improving the public’s understanding of science. Moreover, lack of communication skills, awareness and interest among scientists themselves scientists were mentioned in this study, as well as time and money constraints and lack of support. One in three scientists considered the media to be a barrier. The study by the Royal Society (2006) showed that lack of time was the most important barrier for scientists, followed by perceived risks on their academic career, peer pressure and the idea participation does not bring in funding and is therefore not a high priority activity. Bringing in more money into the department was found to be the top incentive in this research. However, later studies found that time constraints and career recognition did not influence the intention to participate in science communication activities (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007; Jensen, Rouqier, Kreimer and Croissant, 2008).
8
Although science communication is considered a scientists’ duty (Wolfendale committee, 1995; Peters et al., 2008b), a limited number of studies have been performed focusing on the involvement of scientists and their institutions in science communication (Neresini & Bucchi, 2011), and even less research focused on the journalists’ perspective. In addition, research identifying motivators and barriers to scientists’ participations has been mainly descriptive and carried out without an underlying theoretical framework (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). In a recent study, however, the actual media coverage was related to the motivation in a study based on the theoretical framework of the Influence of Presumed Media Influence (Tsfati, Cohen & Gunther, 2011). This study showed that the scientists’ belief about the influence of media increased their motivation and efforts to obtain media coverage, which was related to the number of actual media appearances. Poliakoff and Webb (2007) used and augmented the theory of planned behavior in which engagement in certain behavior, in this case participation in science communication activities, is predicted by three factors: attitude, subjective norm and perceived control. Poliakoff and Webb (2007) investigated beliefs among 169 scientists from the UK using a questionnaire and found that mainly past behavior, attitude (whether participation was regarded as positive), perceived behavioral control (beliefs whether participation was under their control), and descriptive norms (whether scientists believe their colleagues participate) were important factors in predicting the scientists’ participation in science communication activities. They found other factors, such as money and time constraints, fear, possible career benefits and subjective norm did not significantly influence the intention to engage in science communication activities. Although the studies performed by Poliakoff and Webb (2007) and Tsfati et al. (2011) were both carried out using a theoretical framework, they failed to investigate the possible influencing factors using a qualitative approach prior to their quantitative survey. This may have lead to an incomplete overview of influencing factors and biased questioning. In addition, these studies focused were limited to the scientists’ perspective. Only if the journalists’ view is included, useful insights in how to improve the scientistmedia interaction can be obtained. One research (Waddell, Lomas, Lavis, Abelson, Shepherd, & Bird-Gayson, 2005) focused on a qualitative approach to investigate the journalists’ view on working with researchers, but aimed at policy making in stead of true science communication. They found journalists had difficulties finding scientists willing and able to communicate with public audiences and would like to see more researchers
9
involved. Research by Kaye et al. (2011) did focus on both health scientists and science journalists and used a qualitative approach to investigate attitudes and barriers in science communication. In this study it is concluded perceived barriers are inadequate or inappropriate skills, negative attitudes and lack of supportive environment by employers and peers. However, they did not base their research on an underlying theoretical framework, used an open-ended semi-structured questionnaire in stead of more in-depth and free-response interviews, and their research was performed under health scientists and journalists in Uganda only. Press officers, science communicators and PR professionals of the scientists’ organizations play a mediating role in science communication. However, research organizations often have their own interests in participation in science communication, they use it to legitimize their relevance and importance (Peters, 2008). Although these mediators are important actors in science communication and the difference in interest may hamper the science-media interaction, very few studies have focused on their role. Research by Dunwoody and Ryan (1983) has showed that most scientists have a positive attitude towards mediators, but that these scientists also perceive the mediators in some cases hinder their efforts to increase public understanding. More insight in the current beliefs about mediators is needed, in which also the views of the journalists should be included. To obtain a more precise understanding of influencing factors in the sciencemedia interaction and overcome important limitations, this study explores both the scientists’ and science journalists’ perspective, using the theory of planned behavior as its underlying framework. In addition, the opinions of scientists and journalists about mediators are investigated.
2.3 Theory of planned behavior The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is a social-cognition model used to predict human behavior and has been applied in many studies and received widespread support as a model of predicting behavior. A central factor in the theory of planned behavior is the individual’s intention to perform a given behavior, which is a predictor for the actual performance of behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior there are three predictors of intention: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, which are the result of respectively behavioral, normative and control beliefs. Attitudes refer to the individual’s positive or negative evaluation of engaging in a particular behavior
10
(behavioral beliefs). Subjective norms reflect to beliefs about whether other (groups of) people would approve or disapprove of one engaging in the behavior (normative beliefs). Perceived behavioral control is similar to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and reflects one’s beliefs about resources, abilities, and opportunities to perform the behavior successfully (control beliefs). Since both scientists and journalists are involved in science communication, for each group participation in science communication activities can be predicted by the intention to participate in this behavior. This intention is in turn influenced by the three defined factors in the theory of planned behavior (Figure 1). In addition, successful performance of the behavior depends not only on the intention, but also on a sufficient level of actual behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). The three constructs are assumed to contribute unequally to the intention in the different groups. For example, journalists might have different beliefs about behavioral control of participation in science communication activities when compared to scientists. In this study we therefore focus on both groups involved in the science-media interaction. Eliciting salient behavioral, normative and control beliefs is an important first step in gaining a more precise understanding of the science-media interaction.
Behavioral beliefs
Attitude
Normative beliefs
Subjective norm
Control beliefs
Perceived control
Scientist
Intention to participate
Intention to participate
Participation in science communication activities
Attitude
Behavioral beliefs
Subjective norm
Normative beliefs
Perceived control
Control beliefs
Journalist
Figure 1 Schematic overview of application of the theory of planned behavior in participation in science communication activities (adapted from Ajzen, 1991). Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are the result of behavioral, normative and control beliefs, and predict intention to participate in science communication activities, for both scientists and journalists. This will in turn predict actual participation in science communication activities. The dotted lines represent actual behavioral control, which might influence the behavior directly.
11
2.4 Aim The science-media interaction is often thought to be difficult and barriers are experienced. Previous research often lacks a theoretical framework and focuses on the scientists’ view only. A more precise understanding of the complex science-media interaction is needed. The aim of this study is to explore salient beliefs according to the theory of planned behavior about participation in science communication activities from both the scientists’ and journalists’ perspective by means of interviews. The main research question can thus be defined as follows:
‘Which behavioral, normative and control beliefs influence the science-media interaction, from both the scientists’ and journalists’ perspective?’.
In addition to this main research question, the existing opinions and experiences with mediators and their role within science communication will be explored. A subquestion can therefore be stated:
‘What are the scientists’ and journalists’ opinions on mediators?’
12
3. METHODS To find answers on the research questions scientists and journalists were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The respondent groups and used methods are explained in this chapter. Section 3.1 gives insight in the included respondents. In section 3.2 the used instrument is explained and section 3.3 focuses on the performed qualitative data analysis.
3.1 Respondents A sample of 21 scientists and 14 science journalists were interviewed. Included scientists were all involved in (bio)medical research within the LUMC. Scientists with different levels of scientific experience were included in the sample, ensuring variation. Also, previous participation in science communication activities was taken into account. Scientists who are known to be very active (n=5) or not active at all (n=3) in science communication, as indicated by the LUMC’s communication specialists, were asked to participate and included in this study. Other scientists (n=13) were randomly selected from a list of all researchers in the hospital. Science journalists were contacted via existing contacts of the LUMC (n=6) and via the national society of science journalists (n=8). Science journalists with different levels of experience in the (bio)medical field and writing for different (kinds of) media were included to obtain variation within the respondent group. All participants were either called or e-mailed and asked if they were indeed involved in biomedical research or science journalism and if they were willing and able to participate. The interviews took place at a location that was convenient for the respondent, but preferably in an office or conference room that ensured some privacy.
3.2 Instrument All interviews were conducted by the researcher and were estimated to last between 30 to 45 minutes. A semi-structured interview guide was composed according to the guidelines defined by Ajzen (2011) and used to explore the behavioral, normative and control beliefs regarding participation in science communication activities. In addition, respondents were asked about their previous experiences and behavior and their opinions about mediators. Comparable guides were used for the interviews with scientists and science journalists (Appendix 7.1 and 7.2). To make sure the definitions were understood correctly by the respondents, these were given at the beginning of the
13
interview. Although the areas of questioning were defined, the interview scheme allowed for probing, flexibility and deeper examination of issues arising during the interview. Characteristics of the interviews can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of interviews (n=35) Interview time (minutes) Mean (± SD) Range
Scientists (n=21)
Journalists (n=14)
37.5 (± 11.2) 18 - 55
46.9 (± 5.6) 35 - 53
3.3 Analysis Interviews were digitally recorded with the respondents’ permission and transcribed verbatim. Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis was performed using Atlas.ti 6.2 software. The researcher first read transcribed interviews to get familiarized and then coded and thematically arranged the data according to the constructs of the theory of planned behavior. Subsequently, the data for each construct was grouped into subthemes using an inductive process and analyzed. Relevant fragments, themes and sub themes were discussed with two additional reviewers throughout the process of analysis.
14
4. RESULTS In this chapter the results of this study are presented. Section 4.1 gives an overview of the characteristics of the included respondents. Subsequently, section 4.2 focuses on the behavior of the respondents. Section 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 focus on the three constructs of the theory of planned behavior: attitude, subjective norm and perceived control, respectively. Finally, in section 4.6 the role of mediators is presented.
4.1 Sample characteristics Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the research samples, which consisted of 21 scientists of whom 62% were male, and 14 journalists of whom 43% were male. The scientific experience of scientists is depicted in Table 2, as well as the professional experience of the science journalists. Scientific and professional experience is defined as the number of years involved in research for scientists and number of years involved in science journalism, respectively. Table 2: Characteristics of research sample (n=35) Scientists (n=21) Sex (n) Male 13 (62%) Female 8 (38%)
7 8
(43%) (57%)
Years of experience (n) <5 5 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 > 30
2 5 5 1 1
(14%) (36%) (36%) (7%) (7%)
4 1 4 8 4
(19%) (5%) (19%) (38%) (19%)
Journalists (n=14)
Table 3: Frequency of participation in science communication activities by scientists (n=21) n % Never 5 (24%) < 1x per year 6 (28%) > 1x per year 6 (28%) > 1x per month 2 (10%) > 1x per week 2 (10%)
4.2 Behavior Scientists were asked about their previous experiences with science communication and the frequency of their participation in science communication activities. Frequency of participation in science communication activities was divided into five categories, ranging
15
from no previous participation to more than once a week and is shown in Table 3. This table showed more than half of the respondents never participated in science communication or have very little experience. When asked about ways in which scientists were contacted by journalists, most scientists indicated that the journalists usually contacted them directly by phone or e-mail, or sometimes they get in touch with a science journalist via the hospital’s communication department. Few indicated they contacted journalists themselves when they thought they had an interesting story, these scientists were experienced in science communication activities and often have science journalists within their professional network. Some others thought it was the communication specialists’ role to get in touch with the journalist when they want to bring news. Participation in written press was the most common for the respondents, although some were also experienced in giving television or radio interviews and speaking about science to the lay public at events (e.g. Science Café’s). Journalists were asked what steps they usually take when reporting about science. An overview of the steps within this process can be found in Table 4. Their choice on the subject is sometimes already defined by the publisher, but often depends on the journalists’ personal interests as well as the newsworthiness of the subject. The definition of this ‘newsworthiness’ is ambiguous, but science journalists mentioned factors such as relevance for the public, previous coverage, knowledge about the Table 4: Steps undertaken by science journalists in science journalism 1. Deciding what to write about Subject already defined by publisher Newsworthiness Personal interest of journalist Opinion of expert about research 2. Finding a scientist to interview Already defined by publisher Included in press release Scientific search Google search Personal network 3. Contacting the scientist Directly via e-mail or phone Indirectly via communication department 4. Interviewing and writing Thorough preparation on subject Interview face-to-face or via telephone Give scientist the opportunity to check the result
16
subject and novelty of the news play a role in this process. One journalist mentioned an independent expert is always asked to comment on the quality of the research prior to start working on the article. When the subject is defined, the journalist searches for scientists to interview about the subject. Sometimes this scientist is already found by the publisher, or the name and contact details of the scientist are readily included in the press release. However, often the science journalists seek an independent expert for advice and a reaction on the subject. Besides personal network being a good source, they use Google and scientific searches to find a matching expert, who will then be contacted either directly or via the communication department of the institute. The journalists then take their time to thoroughly prepare the interview, by reading other news items and scientific publications on the subject. Almost all journalists let the scientists read the article they wrote before publishing to ensure correctness.
4.3 Attitude Behavioral beliefs were distinguished between advantages and disadvantages. Both categories could be subdivided into consequences for the scientist, the research field and the public. In addition, respondents commented on the quality of media coverage of science, which will be presented in the first paragraph.
Opinions about the media coverage of science Most respondents noted the quality of science journalism is very variable and differs strongly between and within different media. Journalists criticized the way of journalism in which news items are directly copy-pasted from press releases and are not checked before publishing. A journalist elaborated on this: “Je hebt gewoon de echte flutjournalistiek, in de internethoek zal ik maar zeggen. En dat gaat dan via de Spits en de Metro, dat zit er heel dicht tegenaan, gaat het naar de iets serieuzere kranten en dan naar de Volkskrant en de NRC waar het steeds beter wordt. … Die onderkant van het segment, dat is echt bagger, er zit geen enkele zeef op er wordt niks gecontroleerd. Dat is gewoon copy-paste. Het staat ineens op honderdduizend sites tegelijk. En bij de gewone kranten hebben ze ten minste nog een paar journalistieke basisregels die ze hanteren: controleren, verifiëren, en extra commentaar erbij.” (Journalist) Journalists stressed the fact that a science journalist should always be very critical and they all hope to contribute to correct and high-quality science journalism.
17
Although scientists appreciated the effort that is being made to bring science to the public and they believed some science journalists do their work really well, they also mentioned many shortcomings. They think it often lacks nuance and is sensationalized. Moreover, they believed it is frequently incomplete and misunderstood and therefore poor in quality. In addition, used sources are sometimes unclear or unavailable and felt that coverage might be biased. One scientist expressed his doubts regarding science communication: “Dat [science communication] wat op mijn eigen vakgebied is, denk je van: poeh, wat zit het er vaak fors naast. En dat maakt je dus heel erg twijfelachtig over de andere dingen die je leest, wat daar nu wel de waarheid van is.” (Scientist) To satisfy their own interests, scientists mentioned they would like to have more insight in the exact results and the used methods of the particular research.
Advantages Most advantages were mentioned by both the scientists and journalists, although small differences in perceived advantages do exist. All advantages are listed in Table 5. Journalists mentioned the enjoyment by the public more often, whereas the scientists seemed to primarily focus on the advantages for the research field and themselves. Most respondents thought that by participating in science communication activities the scientists’ name will become well known, which might be an advantage for obtaining grants or promotion. However, some respondents of both groups thought it would not have an effect, and a few mentioned this should not be an advantage in their opinion. They believed that researchers should be evaluated by their scientific work and not based on their participation in science communication. Other mentioned advantages for the scientists include influencing policy making, enjoyment and improving the scientists’ acknowledgement and critical reflection of own work. Advantages for the research field include enhancing attention and goodwill, informing colleagues about the research which leads to more knowledge and might also result in new ideas or collaborations that will expedite the scientific process, and increasing financial support, either by grants from the government or private funding from the public. Sharing knowledge was considered the main advantage for the public. When the lay public is informed about scientific findings it is thought they will be able to make valid decisions regarding their own health and behavior, they will have a better understanding of the scientific process in general and more respect for patients and its diseases. In addition, when the public is correctly
18
informed, this might also reduce anxiety for certain new techniques or products and taboos can be overcome. Enjoyment of the public is an important advantage as well, which can result in the recruitment of students and future scientists.
Table 5: Advantages of participation in science communication activities Advantages for the scientist Influencing policy making “Als jij goed bent in het duidelijk maken op allerlei niveaus wat op dit
Enhancing critical reflection of own work
Acknowledgement of work Increasing chances for grants Improving reputation
Enjoyment No advantages
moment het soort vraagstellingen is wat er speelt, wat je aan kan pakken en waar muziek in zit, en wat ook maatschappelijk rendement heeft. Dus de brug slaan tussen wetenschap en maatschappij, dan is het ook makkelijker om de besluiten zodanig te krijgen dat er af en toe eens een call for proposals is waar je op in kan spelen.” (Scientist) Het kan je carrière beïnvloeden door het feit dat jij beter wordt in je vakgebied. Dat is een heel onderschat concept, maar Einstein zei ooit dat je iets niet begrijpt als je het niet aan je oma kan uitleggen. Juist door met leken te communiceren over wat je nou aan het doen bent, kom je, kan je je eigen vakgebied scherper krijgen. (Journalist) “En verder denk ik gewoon, dat is natuurlijk met heel veel andere beroepen ook, is het gewoon ook heel erg prettig als mensen begrijpen wat je doet.” (Scientist) “Als ik iets interessants zou vinden en daar bijvoorbeeld een artikel over schrijf, dan is het ook goed voor mij natuurlijk. Omdat mijn onderzoek dan in de interesse komt, en daardoor.. misschien kan ik meer financiële steun krijgen om in het onderzoek verder te gaan.” (Scientist) “De universiteit vindt dat aantrekkelijk, iedereen denkt even aan je als er gedacht moet worden over mensen die in commissies moeten, als mensen moeten beoordelen of je een project wel of niet krijgt, als je werk beoordeeld moet worden door andere wetenschappers.” (Scientist) “Ik vind het leuk om dingen uit te leggen, als het een ingewikkeld onderwerp is vind ik het leuk om te doen. (Scientist) “Nou, ik denk niet zozeer in positieve zin. Want ik denk dat als jij ergens voor een baan solliciteert er toch vooral naar je wetenschappelijke publicaties wordt gekeken en misschien niet zozeer of in mindere mate naar je wetenschapscommunicatie.” (Scientist)
Advantages for the research field “Het is een manier om goodwill te kweken voor de onderzoekslijn, het Getting attention for vakgebied. Dat is ook een beetje de functie van hoogleraren van een research
Increasing financial support Informing colleagues Advantages for the public Sharing knowledge - Enabling behavioral change - Understanding of diseases and
vakgebied, dat je met elkaar probeert het vakgebied een goede uitstraling te geven. Ja, ik wil de term marketing niet in de mond nemen, maar je kan wel zien dat mensen daar heel goed in zijn, en dat helpt ze wel.” (Scientist) “En ik vind ook dat mensen enthousiast moeten worden voor wetenschap. Misschien dat particulieren er dan meer geld in stoppen, daar is het ook belangrijk voor.” (Scientist) “Meestal worden die populaire wetenschappelijke artikelen toch wel vaak met een dwars oog ook door andere artsen ook doorgelezen. Want je krijgt ook mensen met vragen op je spreekuur.” (Scientist) “Het is toch belangrijk om de mensen te laten weten wat er allemaal speelt in de wetenschap en steeds meer kennis te vergaren. Om mensen voor te lichten. Dat is denk ik wel belangrijk.” (Scientist) “Als je mensen niet vertelt dat roken ongezond is of overgewicht dan verandert er ook niks.” (Scientist) “Omdat hoofdpijn is eigenlijk, is een beetje een ondergeschoven kindje en veel patiënten met hoofdpijn die worden vaak bekeken als
19
patients - Understanding of scientific process
- Reducing anxiety
Enjoyment
aanstellers, en ik denk dat die enorme aandacht aan de wetenschappelijk basis van het onderzoek doen naar hoofdpijn enorm heeft bijgedragen aan een betere waardering voor de ziekte.” (Scientist) “Ja, algemene mening is denk ik: al die verstrooide professors die in een ivoren toren zitten. Ik denk dat het vaak een negatieve beeld is, een beetje vaag: wat doen ze, waarmee zijn ze bezig? Niet helemaal een goed positief beeld volgens mij. En dat is natuurlijk ook belangrijk om over te communiceren, en daarmee ook te laten zien van hoe ziet het proces van onderzoek eruit. En daarmee begrijpen mensen ook het en de essentie van het onderzoek.” (Scientist) Als je kijkt naar de rellen rond de vaccinaties verleden jaar bijvoorbeeld .. Die angsten die zijn niet het gevolg van wetenschapscommunicatie, maar die kun je wel bestrijden met wetenschapscommunicatie.” (Journalist) “En daarnaast is wetenschap, dat is het eerste wat ik zei, is gewoon leuk en interessant.” (Journalist)
Disadvantages All mentioned disadvantages are summarized in Table 6. The most important disadvantage that scientists mentioned is loss in credibility, trust and status, which will lead to reputation damage and affects one’s career. Thoughts about the severity of this reputation loss differed between respondents. Whereas some believed it will destroy ones career, others thought it will be a temporary effect and can be overcome. Another disadvantage for the scientist is the fact that information about the research may be used by competing research groups to their benefit, although most respondents stressed the fact that this rarely happens, since research findings are generally communicated to the public once they are already published in a peer-reviewed journal. A disadvantage for the research field in general is the perception it can be shown in a bad light, which might harm financial and public support of the research. Scientists believed sensationalism is an important hindering factor and can lead to the spreading of incorrect information and may induce anxiety and false hope among the public. Due to the uncertainty of science in general, discussions among scientists in the public domain and the excess of information people can find on for example the internet, the public might get confused and uncertain about what and who to believe. A remarkable difference was found between the behavioral beliefs regarding disadvantages of scientists and journalists. Whereas most scientists immediately answered the question “What disadvantages do you think science communication has?” with several negative factors, journalists were more reserved and considered disadvantages only to be present when science communication goes wrong. Some
20
scientists are therefore reluctant to participate, mainly because of the possible disadvantages they foresee for their own reputation. However, most of them do see the importance of science communication for the public and are willing to participate when asked. Some scientists and most journalists even consider it to be the scientists’ duty, since their research is funded by public money.
Table 6: Disadvantages of participation in science communication activities Disadvantages for the scientist “Het is natuurlijk de grens, wat communiceer je wel naar buiten en wat Giving information to niet. Want je wil natuurlijk ook niet de concurrentie op ideeën brengen other groups Reputation loss
door wat jij naar buiten brengt.” (Scientist) “Als je te popiejopie op tv verschijnt, word je door je collega’s vaak wat minder neergezet. Dan word je minder serieus genomen als wetenschapper.” (Scientist)
Disadvantages for the research field “Als mensen de goede dingen van het onderzoek zien, is dat alleen maar Decreasing support gunstig voor ons. Doe je dat verkeerd, dan wordt er alleen maar naar gestreefd om te bezuinigen.” (Scientist)
Disadvantages for the public “Mensen komen op voorhand al met paniek en eigen diagnoses bij een Inducing anxiety Providing incorrect information
Inducing false hope Increasing uncertainty about what to believe
arts, terwijl er misschien helemaal niks aan de hand is.” (Scientist) “Maar ik denk dat er voldoende voorbeelden te vinden zijn, als je er even over nadenkt, waarbij verkeerde berichtgeving mensen op een totaal verkeerd spoor brengt. En dat kan zelfs tot op hoog niveau zijn. Ik bedoel, ik denk dat er over het klimaat en de effecten van het klimaat, daar wordt soms ook onjuist over gerapporteerd.” (Scientist) “En zeker als het gaat om kanker, dan denken mensen gelijk van: oh, je geneest mensen. Nee, ik genees geen mensen, zo ver zijn we niet, dat doen wij niet.” (Scientist) “Het kan natuurlijk verwarrend zijn … de stukjes in de krant zijn vaak hele kleine beetjes informatie, en al die losse beetjes kan bij elkaar een verwarrend beeld scheppen denk ik wel. (Journalist)
4.4 Subjective norm Normative beliefs were explored by asking respondents on how others would feel about their participation in science communication. These could be divided into two categories: perceived behavioral expectations of others and perceived behavioral expectations of scientists and journalists about each other. Normative beliefs appeared to be more relevant for scientists than they were for journalists, since it is the journalists’ job to be involved in science communication activities. In contrary, for the scientist participation in science communication means an addition to his normal tasks as a researcher and demands time and effort. The questions regarding normative beliefs therefore mainly focused on the participation of scientists.
21
Perceived behavioral expectations of others Scientists were asked who would encourage or discourage their participation in science communication. It was found that colleagues play a very important, but ambiguous, role. Some scientists reported that colleagues are important in the process of science communication, they encourage and support each other, for example by discussing the possibilities and messages or referring journalists to a colleague who may be a more suitable expert to interview. At the same time, the criticism of colleagues is an important reason not to participate in science communication. A scientist said: “Toen ik hier in opleiding ging, hadden we het hoofd van de afdeling, dat was een hele beroemde arts, met een hele ouderwetse kijk op contacten met de media. En die zei altijd: ‘Een arts komt slechts twee keer in de krant, een keer bij de geboorte en een keer bij het overlijden. En alles wat daartussen zit moet je vermijden.’ Dus die was heel erg tegen, van: je moet niet communiceren in media. … Er is altijd wel een klein clubje mensen die het maar niks vindt en daar dan ook kritisch over is.” (Scientist) Almost all scientists mentioned they have mixed feelings about other scientists who appear in the media frequently. On the one hand they admire these scientists, because they are both an expert in their field and a good communicator. They therefore think it is logical they are regularly asked to comment. On the other hand, scientists feel those colleagues are idle and presumptuous and overplay their role as an expert: “…ik kan me voorstellen dat ik weleens denk ik van: nou, je wil wel erg graag in the picture. Maar goed, dat moet je zelf weten, zo gaat het in het leven. … Terwijl je bijvoorbeeld misschien weet van: hij is helemaal niet een topper in zijn vak ofzo. Het is een handige opdonder die graag publiciteit wil en het op die manier voor elkaar krijgt.” (Scientist) Competition between scientists and jealousy might contribute to these opinions. The balance between these contrary feelings appeared to be extremely delicate and seemed to depend on personal values and the message of the interviewee. This is illustrated by the reaction of a scientist: “Ik zie soms weleens wetenschappers op televisie waarvan ik denk: nou, dat zou ik niet kunnen op die manier. Zo rustig blijven, en zo duidelijk uitleggen met al die camera’s op je gericht en die hete lampen enzo. Ja, knap. Dus zolang het op een integere manier gebeurt en ik het gevoel heb dat er een boodschap mee over het voetlicht wordt gebracht, waar ik ook wel van denk dat ze belangrijk zijn om over het voetlicht te brengen, dan vind ik dat gewoon prima. Dat er dan toevallig iemand op kickt dat hij zo vaak op het nieuws is, nou, dat zie je in het hele leven, daar lig ik niet wakker van.” (Scientist)
22
Only some journalists were fully aware of the existing criticism between colleaguescientists and their role within this process. Journalists mentioned it is very useful and valuable to know scientists who are good communicators and always willing to participate, and those are therefore frequently asked to participate. Some journalists believed this does sometimes give a biased view and felt that other scientists or experts should be invited to participate as well. However, convenience and time pressure prevent the journalists from asking other scientists to comment. Besides encouragement by their colleagues, scientists mentioned superiors, sponsors and patients also encourage their participation. The latter is described by a scientist: “Ik ben altijd verbaasd hoeveel patiënten me op tv hebben gezien of blaadjes hebben gelezen. Maar die zijn altijd heel positief, die vinden het ook echt heel leuk. Die vinden niks leukers dan hun eigen dokter op tv of in een blaadje te zien. Die reacties motiveren ook.” (Scientist) Regarding discouragement, one respondent felt discouraged by the association of medical specialists he is part of: “De vereniging probeert dat [participation in science communication] heel erg te dempen omdat ze bang zijn voor controversiële zaken. … de vereniging heeft zoiets van: nou, even rustig, voor je het weet wordt er ook weer misgeïnterpreteerd en schiet je in je eigen voet. … Er wordt wel enorm gewezen op de gevaren van praten met de pers, en als je benaderd wordt door de pers en het gaat niet over je eigen wetenschappelijk onderzoek, maar over iets algemeens, dat je het dan terugkoppelt naar de vereniging.” (Scientist) Besides the groups of people mentioned in this section, mediators such as press officers and spokespeople are important in the science-media interaction and can encourage or discourage both journalists and scientists to participate. Opinions about the role of mediators are given in section 4.6.
Perceived behavioral expectations of each other Both respondent groups were asked how they thought of each other. When scientists were asked how they think about journalists, almost all of them stressed the fact that they experience large differences between journalists. Although scientists felt that journalists should be both critical and scrupulous and some of them definitely are, the journalists’ intention is not always clear to the scientist. They believed that some
23
journalists only want to ‘score’ with sensational stories for which they use the scientists. The quality of the journalist is perceived to correspond with the quality of the medium they are working for. The scientists believed that journalists require the basic skills of journalism: the journalist should know what news is and what topics are relevant and newsworthy, be critical, good in writing, listening and interviewing, able to handle time pressure and deadlines and is ought to always check the facts. Scientists thought some journalists are not aware of their power and the possible impact their journalistic products may have on the public, the research field and the scientists, as illustrated by this scientist: “Die [journalists] waren er gewoon op uit om te scoren, het [possible new treatment strategy] is natuurlijk een sensationeel verhaal. Niet beseffend dat ze daarmee pak ‘m beet, twee miljoen mensen valse hoop geven, en ze hebben niet de moeite genomen dit factueel na te trekken.” (Scientist) In addition, some scientists considered journalists to be arrogant, since they want to decide what is important for the lay public in the scientists’ research and they do not listen to feedback from the scientist. The perception of the journalists about the scientists’ opinion is fairly consistent with the actual opinions scientists have about them. The journalists expected the scientists to make a difference between the quality of journalism and journalists and this is an important factor for the scientists in deciding whether to participate or not. Moreover, the requirements for good science journalism corresponded between the groups. Journalists believed scientists have different ideas and levels of respect for science journalists. Whereas some journalists believed scientists think science journalism is inferior to science, since science is the most important within the society and science journalists will have difficulties understanding their research, other journalists believed scientists show respect for them and their journalistic work. This difference in opinion is illustrated by the reaction of two different journalists: “De meeste wetenschappers zijn geneigd te denken dat de wetenschap het mooiste en moeilijkste is wat op aarde bestaat, en dat al het andere, en dus niet alleen journalistiek, maar al het andere onder de wetenschap staat. En dat wetenschappers dus ook alles beter kunnen dan andere mensen.” (Journalist) “Ik merk vaak dat wetenschappers toch wel inzien dat het [science journalism] een apart vak is en dat het bepaalde vaardigheden vereist. Daar hebben ze wel oog voor.” (Journalist)
24
Both scientists and journalists thought science journalism is a specialized field within journalism which requires additional skills and a scientific background. However, respondent groups did not agree on this background. Most scientists believed science journalists should have an academic degree within the field they are writing about, whereas journalists believed enthusiasm and the eagerness to learn about the subjects should be enough. An example of the view of a journalist: “Je hebt mensen die kunnen heel goed schrijven, maar mooie woorden zonder inhoud, daar heb je heel weinig aan. Dus je moet eigenlijk op je eigen vakgebied wel een beetje weten waar je over praat. En dat kan door je te specialiseren in een onderwerp, maar het kan ook dat je al gespecialiseerd bent door je achtergrond of je studie. Want ik ken ook, er zijn ook zat gewone journalisten die zich uiteindelijk specialiseren tot wetenschapsjournalist, omdat ze vaak over die onderwerpen schrijven. Dat doen er ook een hoop, dat mag ook.” (Journalist)
When journalists were asked about their opinion about scientists, they mentioned they enjoy talking to them, since they are enthusiastic about their work and inspiring to have a conversation with. Although scientists sometimes use jargon which is difficult to understand, if the scientists is enthusiastic it will always work out well, is the opinion of the journalists. Journalists believed most scientists are willing to participate in science communication and are often flattered to be asked. However, some scientists are reserved or reluctant and seem to be frightened or suspicious. Journalists considered this the result of negative previous experiences, as a journalist explained: “Ik merk wel dat veel wetenschappers heel huiverig zijn wat hun onderzoek straks in de pers gaat doen. Ik spreek ook regelmatig wetenschappers die zeggen: met jou praat ik nog wel, maar met de Telegraaf niet meer.” (Journalist) The perception of the scientists on the journalists’ opinion tended to be more negative than the actual opinion journalists have. Scientists thought journalists believed they are difficult to talk to, are arrogant and demanding, and have a limited view: “Ik denk dat ze vinden dat ze te veel in vakjargon praten, dat ze vaak een blik hebben die heel erg beperkt is tot hun eigen onderzoek. Voor de rest, ja, misschien vinden ze sommigen ook wel arrogant.” (Scientist) In contrary, most journalists believed the scientists do not require specific characteristics to participate. As long as he is willing and able to talk, the journalist will take care of the rest, as this journalist explained:
25
“Als je als wetenschapsjournalist werkt en je interviewt wetenschappers voor een verhaal, dan denk ik dat het eigenlijk mijn taak is om te zorgen dat het goed komt en niet de zijne. Dus als hij dan niet uit kan leggen of slordig is of wat dan ook, dan zie ik het wel als mijn taak om dat op te lossen. Dus wat mij betreft hoeft hij niet aan bepaalde eisen te voldoen.” (Journalist) Some scientists believed journalists think very few of all the performed research is interesting enough. Some said the journalists have respect for the difficulty of science and performing research and that they enjoy talking about it. Regarding the media, both groups believed scientists should have some insight in how the media works and how news is made, have a feeling for newsworthy topics and relevance for the public, and most importantly he should be able to translate the scientific findings to a comprehensible story for the lay public. “Een wetenschapper moet aan iemand kunnen uitleggen die niet op de hoogte is van het onderwerp, op een goede manier waar het om draait. Dat je gewoon tot de kern komt, en in begrijpelijk Nederlands. En niet verzandt in terminologie.” (Journalist) 4.5 Perceived control Respondents were asked which factors impede or facilitate their participation in science communication activities. In addition, they were asked if they thought they were able to engage in science communication activities and which barriers they experience or expect. A comparison between the respondent groups showed the control beliefs experienced by journalists were more practical issues than the beliefs of scientists. Control beliefs of the journalists could therefore be distinguished in beliefs regarding communication with the scientists or science communication in general.
Negative control beliefs Scientists mentioned several barriers that withhold them from participation in science communication activities. Among these barriers are some that could be categorized under the other two constructs of the theory of planned behavior, attitude and social norm, and are already discussed. These include negative previous experiences with science communication, which might result in anxiety and reluctance to participate. Negative experiences can be with science communication in general or a specific medium or journalist. Uncertainty about the results of their research is another barrier and may be a reason not to participate, because this might lead to for example false
26
hope among the public or reputation damage of the scientist. As mentioned before, the scientists fear the criticism of their colleagues, which can be a reason not to participate. In addition, a controversial subject or a subject with ethical implications is perceived as a barrier. The barriers that are related to the scientists’ perceived ability to engage in science communication activities are listed in Table 7 and include lack of communication skills, lack of knowledge, unawareness of the possibilities, perceived irrelevance of their research, insufficient support and lack of time. Some scientists perceived a lack of communication skills and felt that they are not able or sufficiently skilled to participate in science communication activities. Others mentioned they are unaware of the possibilities, believe their research is not relevant, or they do not have sufficient knowledge about science communication and, for example, do not know how to achieve media coverage. Some scientists said there is insufficient support to engage in science communication activities or it costs too much of their time. Table 7: Negative control beliefs of scientists Lack of communication skills “Dus ik denk dat het nuttig is om dat ook van jezelf te onderkennen,
Lack of knowledge Unawareness possibilities
Irrelevant research topic Insufficient support Less time for research/patients
tot op zekere hoogte, met welke soort journalist je het beste communiceert. Mijn neiging tot het maken van lange zinnen met moeilijke woorden erin, dat is voor mij een soort handicap.” “Buiten het ziekenhuis zoeken naar iets, daar heb ik niet zo’n ervaring mee. Ik zou niet weten welke insteek je dan zou moeten nemen, van: we willen iets kwijt.” “Ik geloof niet dat, althans dat is in mijn geval, maar ik denk voor meerdere kan spreken, dat ze daar niet bewust mee bezig zijn. Nee. Gewoon met onderzoek bezig zijn en publiceren, maar niet met…” “Well I guess that might because you think it is not interesting enough for the public, so you don’t think about it.” “Een factor die het [Participation in science communication activities] moeilijk maakt is vooral dat er geen ondersteuning is.” “Het kost veel tijd. Het is.. Je wordt er vaak niet, dat is wel anders aan het worden, maar ook al steek je er veel tijd in.. Als ik beoordeeld wordt hier dan wordt er gekeken hoeveel artikelen heb je gepubliceerd en hoeveel patiënten heb je gezien. Ja, daar zit niet bij hoeveel wetenschapscommunicatie je hebt gedaan.”
Negative control beliefs of the journalists are listed in Table 8, which appeared to be more practical issues compared to the beliefs of scientists. Although these barriers may make the science-media interaction more difficult from the journalists’ perspective, they do not withhold the journalists from participation. The control beliefs are divided into difficulties experienced in the communication with scientists and difficulties in science communication in general. The first category includes lack of communication skills of the scientist and having difficulties with finding the right person to interview, leading the
27
conversation and handling the wishes of the scientist. The second category includes the difficulty of the subject itself, choosing the subjects to report on, time pressure and the limited space. Table 8: Negative control beliefs of journalists Communication with scientist Lack of communication skills scientist Finding the right person
Leading the conversation
Dealing with wishes of scientist
“Soms ook omdat, kijk een wetenschapper is bezig met wetenschap en niet met journalistiek, dus die hebben geen communicatietraining gehad en die weten soms gewoon niet zo goed hoe ze dingen moeten vertellen.” “Ik denk weleens: ik heb wel iemand, maar misschien is er iemand die er nog wel meer van weet. Dus in die zin weet ik niet altijd of je de juiste persoon hebt. Dat is waar ik daar aan denk, wat lastig kan zijn.” “Vaak als je met een wetenschapper afspreekt, dan kom je binnen en gaan ze een soort college geven. Dat is heel lastig in interviews, ik heb dan van tevoren al iets in mijn hoofd, van: die kant wil ik uit. En dat lukt soms niet omdat ja, zij gaan daar zitten en zij hebben soms al een PowerPoint of zo’n apparaatje en dan gaan ze allemaal… Ze staan mij dan gewoon niet toe om vragen te stellen, ze willen gewoon hun verhaal afdraaien.” “Maar ik heb ook weleens dat mensen bij het nalezen van het artikel elk puntkommaatje willen verplaatsen en dan denk ik: nou, dat is niet jouw werk, dat is mijn werk.”
Science communication in general “Onderwerp, soms zijn wetenschappelijke onderwerpen, zoals Difficulty of subject
Choosing the subject Time pressure
Limited space
deeltjesversnellers of kernfusie, gewoon echt moeilijk. Ook te moeilijk voor een journalist om gewoon boven die materie te kunnen staan en te kunnen snappen waar die wetenschapper het in godsnaam over heeft.“ “Ik snap dat iedereen die een onderzoek doet of promoveert ofzo, daar graag aandacht voor wil, maar het is soms wel moeilijk om het kaf van het koren te scheiden wat dan relevant is.” “Ik denk dat er over wetenschap heel veel onzin wordt geschreven en daar zal ik zelf ook wel aan meedoen. Maar je hebt vaak gewoon niet de tijd om de feiten, zeg maar die wetenschap als feit presenteert, om die echt te checken enzo.” “Ja, soms moet je een heleboel, toch net te veel detail opgeven voor de hoeveelheid woorden die je hebt. Dat kan. Soms is er gewoonweg geen plek om genoeg uit te leggen.”
Both groups mentioned lack of communication skills of the scientists as a barrier, and both groups think this barrier may be overcome if the scientists participate in a media training. It is thought this will help the scientist in gaining awareness and experience and teaches them to define the message, which will in turn be advantageous for the journalist as well. A journalist elaborated on this: “Ik denk dat het heel goed is als een wetenschapper mediatraining krijgt, omdat je dan toch leert hoe het werkt, wat de journalist wel of niet kan. Een journalist heeft zo zijn beperkingen en dat kun je maar beter weten als wetenschapper. Mensen hebben weleens het idee dat de journalist aankomt en dat hij dan precies de goede vragen stelt en precies weet wat hij moet vragen, en dan naar
28
buiten loopt en klaar is. Maar eigenlijk heeft zo’n journalist helemaal geen idee vaak, die komt aan en denkt: ‘Nou, ik hoop dat ze een interessant verhaal hebben. Dus het moet vaak ook meer vanuit de wetenschapper zelf komen.’ Sommige wetenschappers weten dat niet en die zijn te afwachtend eigenlijk. Dus het kan heel veel helpen als je gewoon als wetenschapper je eigen verhaal klaar hebt, en weet: dit en dat wil ik vertellen, dat zijn de hoofdpunten, en verder zie ik wel wat er allemaal op me af komt.” (Journalist) Positive control beliefs Besides
media
training,
other
factors
that
facilitate
participation
in
science
communication that were mentioned by scientists included experience with science communication, support from for example the communication department, having journalists within your personal network and being able to check the result and give feedback before publishing. Journalists believed the accessibility and willingness of the scientist are important factors that facilitate participation. Other factors included the high amount and continuous supply of possible subjects, the quality of press releases and the journalists’ background. Moreover, the use of embargos is thought to be advantageous, because it reduces the time pressure that journalists experience.
4.6 Mediators The role of mediators within science communication was explored by asking the respondents about their opinions and experiences with mediators. Opinions of both scientists and journalists are discussed below.
Opinions about mediators in general Opinions about the role of mediators differed considerably between the two groups of respondents. Most scientists believed the mediators play a very important role, since they have the know-how and can advise and guide scientists throughout the process of participation in science communication. Moreover, they can control the quality of the press releases and can decide which topics may be interesting or newsworthy: “Zij [the communication department] zijn een beetje een buffer tussen ons [scientists] en de buitenwereld. Ik denk dat zij pro-actief kunnen zijn, dat ze dingen in werking zetten omdat ze dingen horen en zien dat ze denken: nou, dat is heel leuk voor de beeldvorming naar buiten. Aan de andere kant kunnen zij natuurlijk een stuk veiligheid inbouwen, van wat ik al zei: dat mensen te vroeg naar buiten willen komen, of onderwerpen die beladen zijn of waar misschien ethische of juridische kanten aan zitten.” (Scientist)
29
However, some scientists believed mediators play only a facilitating role and should work by order of the scientist that aims to be covered in the media. In addition, scientists are mostly unaware of the role that mediators play when the communication is initiated by the journalist. Almost every journalist considered mediators to be a “necessary evil”. Preferably, they contact the scientist directly without the interference of a mediator, because they believe it is an extra unnecessary step. Most of the time, they already know who they would like to interview, so talking to the press officers does not add anything. The most important drawback in their opinion is the fact the journalists work under time pressure and they feel asking the communication department for help or permission often delays the process. In addition, some journalists fear the press officers might want to get involved which can hinder their work. “In het begin was ik nog zo braaf, toen ik net begon, dat ik het [asking the communication department] wel deed. En dat werkte echt heel vervelend. Of ik kreeg helemaal geen antwoord, of het duurde heel erg lang, van: dan moet je een schriftelijk verzoek indienen en dan gaan zij het voorleggen. Nou, dan ben je vaak zo een week verder. Dat schiet natuurlijk niet op, daar heb ik dan niks aan.” (Journalist) Journalists also mentioned to be irritated when scientists redirect them to the communication department when they contacted them directly, some even think this shows the communication departments belittle the researchers’ abilities: “Het idee dat zo’n persvoorlichter als een bodyguard tussen mij en de wetenschapper wil staan, dat getuigt van weinig respect voor je eigen medewerkers.” (Journalist) Only two journalists said it is worthwhile to invest in the relationship with mediators, because the press officers know their institute very well, can work fast and might give you a scoop. One of them explained: “Zo’n afdeling Voorlichting weet heel veel van het ziekenhuis, dus die kunnen heel handig zijn om te bemiddelen. Die weten snel welke wetenschapper beschikbaar is en die kunnen achter de schermen even vragen: goh, heb jij tijd, heb je zin? En dan zegt hij misschien: nou, eigenlijk niet, maar die en die zou het wel kunnen doen. Dat krijg ik niet zo snel voor elkaar. Ik maak er dankbaar gebruik van.” (Journalist)
30
One journalist expressed his concerns that high-quality press releases of commercial communication departments and upcoming social media may make the intervention of an independent and critical journalist superfluous: “Ze [communication departments] kunnen op een gegeven moment de journalist er zelfs uitdrukken, want ze kunnen zelf ook publiceren en daarover twitteren et cetera. En ze hebben natuurlijk belangen, dus het niet is altijd waardevrij. Een journalist natuurlijk ook niet, maar het is niet per se in het belang van het publiek, want zij vertegenwoordigen niet het publiek, zij vertegenwoordigen hun instelling. En dan zouden ze weleens het belang van dat onderzoek ten opzichte van de rest van de werelds onderzoeken kunnen overdrijven.” (Journalist)
31
5. DISCUSSION In this final chapter the results and conclusions of this research are discussed. The main findings will be discussed by comparing the scientists’ and journalists’ beliefs according to the three constructs of the theory of planned behavior. In the final paragraphs, limitations of this study are discussed and recommendations will be presented.
5.1 Main conclusions The first aim of this research was to explore salient beliefs about participation in science communication activities, from both the scientists’ and journalists’ perspective. These beliefs are investigated using the three constructs of the theory of planned behavior: attitude, social norm and perceived control. By using this theoretical framework in a qualitative study, a more complete overview of the motives and perceived barriers to participate in science communication activities is obtained. Moreover, by including respondent groups consisting of scientists and journalists this study provides a better understanding of the science-media interaction than previous studies. Attitude and social norm appear to be more relevant for scientists than they are for journalists, which may be explained by the fact it is the journalists’ job to be involved in science communication which they deliberately chose to do, mainly because they enjoy it and feel science communication is important. In contrary, participation in science communication activities is not the scientists’ core task and he has to evaluate for each activity whether it might be beneficial, what the consequences are and if he believes it is worth the time and effort.
Behavior Around three-quarters of the scientists included in this study have experience with participation in science communication activities to some extent. This corresponds to the findings in literature, where percentages of 70% and 75% are reported (Peters et al., 2008a; Royal Society, 2006). Interaction with the press is usually initiated by a journalist and most scientists are unaware of their own possibilities to influence media coverage. Most scientists do not know how a journalist decides on the subject or the interviewee, which may contribute to this unawareness. Journalists, however, mention the reasons to write about a certain subject often depend on personal motives and preferences. Defining the newsworthiness of a story is therefore a difficult and nontransparent task,
32
for both scientists and journalists. It may be beneficial to discuss this newsworthiness and relevance of a certain subject, which will lead to a greater mutual understanding.
Attitude Both groups have a positive attitude towards science communication, but scientists are anxious for possible negative effects on their career and status, which withholds some scientists to participate. These negative effects on their career are thought to be the result of either sensationalism or lack of skills of the journalist, or criticism from their peers. The perceived risk for the scientists’ academic career and peer pressure were also found to be important barriers by the research of the Royal Society (2006). In contrary, Poliakoff & Webb (2007) found that fear did not significantly contribute to the scientists’ intention. The journalists mention the enjoyment of the public more often as an advantage, whereas the scientists seem to primarily focus on the advantages for the research field and themselves. In addition, increasing chances for obtaining grants and funding is a very important perceived benefit for the scientists. These incentives were also found in the studies by the Royal Society (2006) and Peters et al. (2008b). However, as previously described in literature, most scientists in this study also believe it is important to share knowledge with the public, because everyone has the right to be informed about science. They therefore consider participation in science communication activities as a necessity and their duty.
Social norm Scientists
fear
criticism
from
their
colleagues
when
participating
in
science
communication. Dunwoody (2008) elaborates on this criticism within the scientific culture and considers it to be ‘residual hostility’ from the twentieth century when scientists were punished for popularizing their research, for example by denying them access to memberships of scientific societies. The fact that some scientists in this study refer to the critical colleagues as ‘old-fashioned’ confirms this explanation. Although this study gives insight in the underlying emotions and opinions of scientists about their peers who participate in science communication activities, further investigation is recommended to uncover all of these emotions. It appeared that scientists believe that journalists think more negatively about them than the journalists actually do. This may indicate the scientists are not aware of
33
the expectations of the journalists. Most journalists believe it is their job to translate the research findings into a comprehensible story for the lay public. A scientist with good communication skills is helpful, but not a requirement, according to the journalists. Since lack of skills is a perceived barrier for scientists, improving insight in the mutual expectations within the science-media interaction may be beneficial. The respondent groups did not agree on the needed background for science journalists. Most scientists believe journalists should have a scientific background in the field they are writing about, because this will lead to more accurate coverage and journalistic skills can be learned. In contrary, journalists believe great interest for the subject and eagerness to learn would suffice. A study by Dunwoody (2004) showed that although formal science education makes a modest difference in report knowledge, the number of years on the job is the best predictor for the quality of journalistic work.
Perceived control Some scientists experience a lack of knowledge regarding science communication and the media. Scientists who are willing to participate but are inexperienced, mention that they are not aware of the possibilities and do not know what steps to take in order to obtain media coverage. Control beliefs of scientists can be improved by gaining more insight in how the media works. Some scientists may therefore benefit from a media training or course. Another barrier that is perceived by scientists in this study is lack of time. However, Poliakoff & Webb (2007) found time constraints did not influence the intention to participate. Previous negative experiences are found to be important barriers, and are influenced by actual experiences with science communication in general or with specific journalists or media. Barriers that were experienced by journalists were merely practical issues. The most important barrier is time pressure; journalists feel they sometimes have too little time to be as critical and thorough as they want to be. Almost every journalist mentions that being critical and skeptical is an important criterion for the ideal high-quality journalism to which he likes to contribute. Research by Waddell et al. (2005) found that journalists experience problems with finding available scientists, but this did not seem to be true for the respondents in this research. In contrary, most of the journalists believe scientists are willing and easy to approach. However, the research by Waddell et al. (2005) focused on policy making in stead of science communication, and the journalist’s reason to contact a scientist might affect the scientist’s attitude.
34
Scientists are often critical about the coverage of science in the media, they believe important details are omitted and it lacks nuance. Moreover, they feel important information about the methodology is sometimes missing. Dunwoody (2008) mentions this criticism is the result of the scientists’ tendency to view their peers as the primary audience, while journalists believe that their actual audience will be intolerant of the level of detail desired by scientists and bringing across one or two accurate short take-home messages is more important. Dunwoody also explains that the coverage of science follows journalistic rather than scientific norms, which may lead to differences in expectations between journalists and scientists. Peters (2008) lists some of these systematic differences in the mutual expectations, being communication norms, model of journalism and control of communication. Although all three were supported in this study, the latter appears to be particularly relevant. While scientists believe having control over the end product is a way to overcome their barriers and in some cases even a prerequisite for participation in science communication activities, it is an important impediment for the journalists, who state that the final result should be in their control. Scientists and journalists should therefore always discuss and make clear agreements about checking and editing the product.
Mediators Only two of the interviewed journalists believe it is important to invest in the relationship with press officers. Other journalists think contacting press officers prior to contacting scientists only impedes their activities. Both scientists and journalists believe mediators should play a facilitating role primarily. However, many scientists do not know about the activities of mediators and are therefore unaware of the advice and services that mediators can offer them. It would be worthwhile to further investigate the roles and expectations of mediators, since this is an unexplored field. Although this study gives some insight in the beliefs and opinions about mediators, a more thorough study is needed. In a future study, it might be useful to include the opinions and perceptions of mediators themselves as well. The theory of planned behavior has shown to be a valuable framework for exploring and analyzing opinions in this study, and may be used in this future study among mediators as well.
35
5.2 Recommendations Enhancing the mutual understanding between scientists and journalists will improve the science-media interaction. On the one hand, scientists should be informed about how the media work and how news is made. On the other hand, journalists should be more aware and understanding about the hesitation and reluctance that is experienced by scientists. Both scientists and journalists should learn more about each others field of work and invest some time and effort in their relationship. The annual Dutch conference ‘Bessensap’ is an excellent example of a way to bring this into practice. This event that is organized by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Dutch society of science journalists, brings scientists and journalists together to exchange stories and ideas. Such events might also be organized on a local or organizational level, and may contribute to improving the mutual understanding and appreciation. Mediators can play an important role in improving the science-media interaction. They should focus on making the scientists within their organization aware of the possibilities and the activities of their department. This might encourage scientists to contact them for advice and support and will help the communication department on keeping up to date about the research performed within the hospital. When a scientist does contact them about possible news items or ideas they have, the communication professionals should provide them feedback what is being done with it and why. Providing the possibility to take part in a media training will enhance insight in how the media works and how scientists can ‘market’ their own research. Moreover, it will help scientists becoming better in participation, since they will learn how to formulate and bring across their message. This will in turn also be beneficial for the journalists and the quality of their work. Since press officers want to keep abreast of communication activities within their organization, mediators should attempt to make their services worthwhile for the journalists. The most important factor is to make the process as fast as possible, by being available at all times and helping the journalists with their questions as soon as possible. Furthermore, investing in a personal relationship with the journalist may be appreciated, for example by inviting journalists for a work visit or granting important scoops to some journalists.
5.3 Limitations This qualitative research gives insight in scientists’ and journalists’ salient beliefs about the science-media interaction. Future quantitative studies are needed to further explore
36
the beliefs of participants in science communication and quantify the importance on the intention to participate in science communication activities. In addition, a quantitative study may give more insight in the beliefs of specific groups within the respondent groups. Although maximum variation within the groups of respondents is pursued, all the scientists were working at the LUMC and all journalists were active within the (bio)medical sciences. This study therefore only gives insight in the behavior of scientists and journalists involved in the (bio)medical sciences, and more specifically within the LUMC. As some studies (Kyvik, 2005; Royal Society, 2006) have showed, the intention to participate in science communication activities differs between scientific fields. It would therefore be interesting to investigate the beliefs within different fields of science, which might be helpful in defining communication strategies and needs for both the scientists and journalists working within specific fields. Furthermore, although most scientists were selected and asked to participate randomly, the journalists were either members of the national society of science journalists or have experience with the communication department of the LUMC. This might give a biased view on the journalists’ beliefs, since the interviewed journalists were those who actively shared their experiences and opinions, or journalists who were thought to be interesting to interview by the LUMC’s communication professionals. In conclusion, salient beliefs about participation in science communication activities are explored, for both journalists and scientists, according to the constructs of theory of planned behavior. This research showed the theory of planned behavior is a useful method to explore the science-media interaction and organize factors influencing the intention to participate in science communication activities. It is found that attitudes are mainly positive, but that the scientists’ fear for possible disadvantages is an important barrier. Creating a better understanding between the scientists and journalists may improve the science-media interaction, in which mediators can play an important role. Future quantitative studies are needed to further explore the beliefs regarding the science-media interaction. This study provides an excellent starting point for this prospective research.
37
6. REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2011). TPB Questionnaire Construction. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/ Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bauer, M.W., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. Bentley, P. & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48-63. Burns, T.W., O’Connor, D.J. & Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202 Dunwoody, S. (2004). How valuable is formal science training to science journalists? Communicação e Sociedade, 6, 75-87. Dunwoody, S. (2008). Science Journalism. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp 15-26). New York, USA: Routledge. Dunwoody, S. & Ryan, M. (1983). Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 647-645. Jensen, E. (2010). Between credulity and skepticism: envisaging the fourth estate in 21st-century science journalism. Media Culture Society, 32(4), 615-630. Jensen, P. (2005). Who’s helping to bring science to the people? Nature, 434, 956. Jensen, P., Rouqier, J., Kreimer, P. & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527-541. Kaye, D.K., Bakyawa, J., Kakande, N. & Sewankambo, N. (2011). The media’s and health scientists’ perceptions of strategies and priorities for nurturing positive scientist-media interaction for communication health research in Uganda. Journal of Medicine and Communication Studies, 3(3), 112-117. Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288-311. Miller, J.D. (1992). Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 23-26. Neresini, F. & Bucchi, M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 64-79.
38
Peters, H.P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp 131-146). New York, USA: Routledge. Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S. & Tsuchida, S. (2008a). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205. Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S. & Tsuchida, S. (2008b). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30(2), 266-276. Poliakoff, E. & Webb, T.L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263. Royal Society, (2006) Factors affecting science communication: a survey of scientists and engineers, retrieved from: http://royalsociety.org/Factors-Affecting-Science-Communication. Strategisch Plan 2009-2013, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, 2009. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. & Gunther, A.C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33(2), 143-166. Waddell, C., Lomas, J., Lavis, J.N., Abelson, J., Shepherd, C.A. & Bird-Gayson, T. (2005). Joining the conversation: Newspaper journalists’ views on working with researchers. Healthcare Policy, 1(1), 123-139. Wellcome Trust. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. Summary of findings. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Publicengagement/WTD003429.htm Willems, J. (2003). Bringing down the barriers. Nature, 422, 470. Wolfendale Committee Final Report. (1995). Committee to review the contribution of scientists and engineers to the public understanding of science, engineering and technology. Retrieved from http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20060215164354/http:/www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusine ss/puset/report.htm.
39
7. APPENDICES
7.1 Interview scheme scientist
Interview guide - Nederlands
Wetenschapper Naam: Functie: Afdeling:
Divisie:
Kamer:
Telefoon:
Datum: Start interview:
Duur:
Introductie - Introductie: Ik ben Maaike Roefs en studeer Communicatiewetenschap aan de Universiteit Twente in Enschede. Momenteel werk ik aan mijn afstudeeronderzoek bij Directoraat Communicatie in het LUMC. - Introductie onderzoek: Ik onderzoek de interactie tussen wetenschappers en wetenschapsjournalisten. - Doel interviews: Via deze interviews wil ik inzicht verkrijgen in de participatie van wetenschappers in wetenschapscommunicatie. Ik zal u vragen stellen over verschillende aspecten van participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie. Het is belangrijk te weten dat ik uw mening wil horen, antwoorden zijn niet goed of fout. Het interview zal ongeveer 30 tot 45 minuten in beslag nemen. - Toestemming opname: Ik wil dit interview graag opnemen. Opnamen zullen vertrouwelijk worden behandeld. Ik zal er nog 1 keer naar luisteren voordat ik ze wis. Indien geen toestemming maak ik notities.
Definitie Om er zeker van te zijn dat de definities duidelijk zijn, wil ik deze eerst uitleggen:
40
- Wetenschapscommunicatie: Het gebruik van allerlei soorten media, activiteiten en dialoog om bij het publiek een van de volgende persoonlijke reacties op wetenschap
te
bewerkstelligen:
bewustwording,
plezier,
interesse,
meningvorming en begrip. Publicatie in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften wordt niet als wetenschapscommunicatie beschouwd.
Allereerst ga ik u wat persoonlijke vragen stellen, over uw werk, functie en eventuele participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie.
Persoonlijk Wat is uw functie? (Professor / Associate of assistant professor / Senior researcher / Postdoc / Senior or junior PhD) Kunt u me kort vertellen over uw onderzoek? (Fundamenteel of translationeel? Diagnostisch or therapeutisch? Epidemiologisch?) Hoeveel jaar bent u reeds betrokken in wetenschappelijk onderzoek?
Gedrag Heeft u geparticipeerd in wetenschapscommunicatie de afgelopen drie jaar? Hoe vaak? Bent u van plan het komende jaar deel te nemen aan wetenschapscommunicatie? Als u wilt deelnemen aan wetenschapscommunicatie, welke stappen neemt u dan?
Voorbeelden Kunt u een voorbeeld noemen waarin uw deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie goed ging? Wat gebeurde er? Waarom? Kunt u een voorbeeld noemen waarin uw deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie slecht ging? Wat gebeurde er? Waarom?
Ik
ga
u
nu
enkele
vragen
stellen
over
wat
u
vindt
van
participatie
in
wetenschapscommunicatie.
Attitudes Wat vindt u van participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat vindt u er leuk of niet leuk aan? 41
Hoe vindt u het om met wetenschapsjournalisten te communiceren? Welke eigenschappen zou een wetenschapsjournalist volgens u moeten bezitten? Gelooft u dat wetenschappers een plicht hebben om te participeren in wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat zijn de voordelen van wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat zijn de nadelen van wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke factoren bemoedigen of ontmoedigen uw deelname? Wat vindt u van (de kwaliteit van) wetenschappelijk onderzoek gepresenteerd in de media? Acht u sommige (soorten) media meer geschikt voor wetenschapscommunicatie dan andere? Welke, en waarom?
Ik heb nu gehoord wat u vindt van wetenschapscommunicatie, de volgende vragen zullen helpen in het verkrijgen van inzicht hoe anderen erover denken.
Subjective norm Wie ondersteunt uw participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie? Wie zou dat niet doen? Wordt u aangemoedigd deel te nemen? Door wie? Nemen uw collega’s deel aan wetenschapscommunicatie? Van de 5 collega’s die u het beste kent, hoeveel van hen nemen deel aan wetenschapscommunicatie? En hoe vaak? Wat vindt u van de collega’s die deelnemen? Hoe denkt u dat journalisten denken over wetenschappers? Gelooft u dat deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie uw wetenschappelijk werk beïnvloed? Hoe reageert het publiek op uw participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie?
In het volgende deel wil ik u vragen stellen over uw veronderstelling over de haalbaarheid van participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie.
Perceived control Welke factoren maken het moeilijk om te participeren in wetenschapscommunicatie?
42
Welke
factoren
maken
het
makkelijk
om
te
participeren
in
wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke competenties moet een wetenschapper beschikken om deel te nemen aan wetenschapscommunicatie? Denkt u dat uw onderzoek geschikt is voor wetenschapscommunicatie? Waarom (niet)? Welke factoren zouden u helpen om mogelijke barrières te overkomen?
Tot slot wil ik u nog een aantal vragen stellen over de rol van mediatoren en Directoraat Communicatie.
Mediators Wat vindt u van de rol die mediatoren (persvoorlichters / andere wetenschappers) spelen in wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke
rol
denkt
u
dat
Directoraat
Communicatie
speelt
in
wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke rol zou u willen dat Directoraat Communicatie vervult? Gelooft u dat de communicatiespecialisten van het LUMC u kunnen ondersteunen in wetenschapscommunicatie? Op welke manier?
Dit waren alle vragen die ik u wilde stellen, hartelijk bedankt! Nog een laatste vraag: Wilt u nog iets toevoegen aan uw antwoorden of iets kwijt over dit onderwerp waar ik u niet naar heb gevraagd?
Interview afsluiten - Volgende stappen: Ik zal de audiotapes nog eenmaal beluisteren en dit gesprek transcriberen en analyseren. Daarna zal ik de audiotape wissen. - Toekomst: Wilt u de uitkomsten van dit onderzoek ontvangen? Als dit onderzoek nog een vervolg krijgt, zouden we u dan nogmaals mogen benaderen? - Contactgegevens: Ik zal u mijn contactgegevens geven. Als u nog aanvullingen, vragen of suggesties heeft, dan kunt u contact met me opnemen.
43
7.2 Interview scheme journalist
Interview guide - Nederlands
Journalist Naam: Telefoon:
Datum: Start interview:
Duur:
Introductie - Introductie: Ik ben Maaike Roefs en studeer Communicatiewetenschap aan de Universiteit Twente in Enschede. Momenteel werk ik aan mijn afstudeeronderzoek bij Directoraat Communicatie in het LUMC. - Introductie onderzoek: Ik onderzoek de interactie tussen wetenschappers en wetenschapsjournalisten. - Doel interviews: Via deze interviews wil ik inzicht verkrijgen in de participatie van journalisten in wetenschapscommunicatie. Ik zal u vragen stellen over verschillende aspecten van participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie. Het is belangrijk te weten dat ik uw mening wil horen, antwoorden zijn niet goed of fout. Het interview zal ongeveer 30 tot 45 minuten in beslag nemen. - Toestemming opname: Ik wil dit interview graag opnemen. Opnamen zullen vertrouwelijk worden behandeld. Ik zal er nog 1 keer naar luisteren voordat ik ze wis. Indien geen toestemming maak ik notities.
Definities Om er zeker van te zijn dat de definities duidelijk zijn, wil ik deze eerst uitleggen: - Wetenschapscommunicatie: Het gebruik van allerlei soorten media, activiteiten en dialoog om bij het publiek een van de volgende persoonlijke reacties op wetenschap
te
bewerkstelligen:
bewustwording,
plezier,
interesse,
meningvorming en begrip. Publicatie in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften wordt niet als wetenschapscommunicatie beschouwd.
44
Allereerst ga ik u wat persoonlijke vragen stellen, over uw werk, functie en eventuele participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie.
Persoonlijk Wat is uw functie? (freelance of in loondienst?) Welke media werkt u voor? (krant / wetenschappelijke of populair magazines / tv / radio / internet)? Welke opleiding heeft u gedaan? Waarom heeft u gekozen voor wetenschapsjournalistiek? Kunt u me kort vertellen in welke onderwerpen u geïnteresseerd bent en aan werkt? Hoeveel jaar bent u reeds betrokken in journalistiek? En wetenschapsjournalistiek?
Gedrag Hoe vaak bent u betrokken bij wetenschapscommunicatie? Hoe bepaalt u de onderwerpen waar u aan werkt? Als u wilt deelnemen aan wetenschapscommunicatie, welke stappen neemt u dan? Hoe bepaalt u welke wetenschapper u gaat interviewen?
Voorbeelden Kunt u een voorbeeld noemen waarin uw deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie goed ging? Wat gebeurde er? Waarom? Kunt u een voorbeeld noemen waarin uw deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie slecht ging? Wat gebeurde er? Waarom?
Ik
ga
u
nu
enkele
vragen
stellen
over
wat
u
vindt
van
participatie
in
wetenschapscommunicatie.
Attitudes Wat vindt u van wetenschapscommunicatie? Is het belangrijk? Wat vindt u er leuk of niet leuk aan? Hoe vindt u het om wetenschapsjournalist te zijn? Hoe vindt u het om met wetenschappers te communiceren? Welke eigenschappen moet een wetenschapper volgens u bezitten om succesvol te zijn in wetenschapscommunicatie?
45
Gelooft u dat de media of wetenschappers een plicht hebben om te participeren in wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat zijn de voordelen van wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat zijn de nadelen van wetenschapscommunicatie? Wat vindt u van (de kwaliteit van) de berichtgeving rondom wetenschappelijk onderzoek in de media? Welke
positieve
of
negatieve
effecten
kunnen
het
resultaat
zijn
van
wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke factoren bemoedigen of ontmoedigen uw deelname?
Ik heb nu gehoord wat u vindt van wetenschapscommunicatie, de volgende vragen zullen helpen in het verkrijgen van inzicht hoe anderen erover denken.
Subjective norm Wie ondersteunt uw participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie? Wie zou dat niet doen? Wordt u aangemoedigd deel te nemen? Door wie? Wat vindt u van wetenschappers die deelnemen aan wetenschapscommunicatie? Hoe denkt u dat andere journalisten denken over wetenschapsjournalistiek? Hoe denkt u dat wetenschappers denken over wetenschapsjournalistiek en wetenschapsjournalisten? Gelooft u dat deelname aan wetenschapscommunicatie het wetenschappelijk werk van een onderzoeker beïnvloed? Hoe reageert het publiek op uw werk?
In het volgende deel wil ik u vragen stellen over uw veronderstelling over de haalbaarheid van participatie in wetenschapscommunicatie.
Perceived control Welke factoren maken het moeilijk om te participeren in wetenschapscommunicatie? Welke
factoren
maken
het
makkelijk
om
te
participeren
in
wetenschapscommunicatie? Over welke competenties moet een wetenschapsjournalist volgens u beschikken? Welke achtergrond moet een wetenschapsjournalist hebben?
46
Denkt u dat alle onderzoek geschikt is voor wetenschapscommunicatie? Waarom (niet)? Welke factoren zouden u helpen om mogelijke barrières te overkomen?
Tot slot wil ik u nog een aantal vragen stellen over de rol van mediatoren en Directoraat Communicatie.
Mediators Wat vindt u van de rol die mediatoren (persvoorlichters / andere wetenschappers) spelen in wetenschapscommunicatie? Positief en negatieve aspecten? Welke
rol
denkt
u
dat
Directoraat
Communicatie
speelt
in
wetenschapscommunicatie? In vergelijking tot andere academische ziekenhuizen? Welke rol zou u willen dat Directoraat Communicatie vervult? Gelooft u dat de communicatiespecialisten van het LUMC u kunnen ondersteunen in wetenschapscommunicatie? Op welke manier?
Dit waren alle vragen die ik u wilde stellen, hartelijk bedankt! Nog een laatste vraag: Wilt u nog iets toevoegen aan uw antwoorden of iets kwijt over dit onderwerp waar ik u niet naar heb gevraagd?
Interview afsluiten - Volgende stappen: Ik zal de audiotapes nog eenmaal beluisteren en dit gesprek transcriberen en analyseren. Daarna zal ik de audiotape wissen. - Toekomst: Wilt u de uitkomsten van dit onderzoek ontvangen? Als dit onderzoek nog een vervolg krijgt, zouden we u dan nogmaals mogen benaderen? - Contactgegevens: Ik zal u mijn contactgegevens geven. Als u nog aanvullingen, vragen of suggesties heeft, dan kunt u contact met me opnemen.
47
