At BE SciComm, we aim to strengthen science communication in education, practice, and academia. Academic research in science communication in Belgium is rather limited, with no formal education program or dedicated research groups. Just like there is no formal education program in science communication, there are no research groups exclusively focused on this topic. When I started my PhD in science journalism, I looked for other researchers in Belgium and the Netherlands (where science communication is much more institutionalized) studying the same topic to exchange ideas and methods. Last week, we met in Antwerp to discuss our research and connect with practitioners. This article presents a brief outline of the meeting.
Ongoing research projects
In the morning, PhD researchers from the fields of science communication, media studies, translation studies, and linguistics presented their work:
Miguel Vissers (Antwerp University, Communication Sciences department) presented his research on the newsworthiness of press releases sent out by Antwerp University during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Anna Heerdink (Leiden University, Science Communication and Society research group) guided us through her ongoing analysis of nearly 900 Dutch news articles about biodiversity research.
Anouk de Jong (University of Twente, Research Centre for Science Communication and Engagement) shared results of an interview study she conducted as part of her PhD that looked into scientists' and journalists' views on (visual) models in Dutch COVID-19 news.
Elisa Nelissen—that's me! (KU Leuven, Translation and intercultural transfer research group) gave a sneak peek of a case study (in progress) that analyzes all media coverage of one particular press release in Flanders and the Netherlands.
Marie Verstappen (KU Leuven, Media, Information & Persuasion Lab) also recently conducted an interview study about the considerations social media editors at newsrooms make when they share news on social media.
Sofie Verkest (Ghent University, Research Centre for Multilingual Practices and Language Learning in Society) recapped her PhD research on interactions between science, media, and policy in the context of a citizen science project.
Research questions from practitioners
In the afternoon, we were joined by practitioners working as science communicators and press officers, with one occasionally writing journalistic articles. The goal of the session was to bring research and practice closer to each other and to gather input from people in the field to inform future research questions.
Here are some of the research questions the practitioners suggested:
Scientists increasingly communicate via social media when a preprint is published and no longer wait for the final publication. How often do journalists report on preprint publications (meaning: research that has not been peer reviewed)? Do newsrooms have policies (explicit or implicit) on this?
What makes a science communicator credible? Which skills should you have as a science communicator? Do you have to be specialized in the topic you are communicating about?
Does sending out press releases under embargo help counter churnalism (since it gives journalists more time)? What do journalists think of embargoes?
If you send a photo with a press release, will it be used by news media? Will the news have a higher chance of receiving coverage?
How can we avoid that a handful of figures who are good at science communication are constantly interviewed and invited as spokespeople for science, even regarding topics outside these people's expertise?
Will new crises after the COVID-19 pandemic have similar characteristics (e.g. the climate crisis)? What lessons can we learn from the pandemic?
Many people feel that the quality of and system behind science journalism could be improved, given the great reliance on press releases. Would a Science Media Centre like the one in the UK (or the government-funded center for science communication that is being founded in the Netherlands) help?
Which questions do you have for local science journalism researchers? Which topics should we pay (more) attention to? Let me know!
The final question sparked a lively debate about the fundamental motivations behind science communication, and the extent to which we should want to convince 'the public' of science as a positive contribution to our society. This is related to the discussions around whether science journalism should participate in science cheerleading or also act as a science watchdog. The result of the cheerleading perspective can be that the pitfalls of the scientific institution (such as fraud, all sorts of misconduct, sloppy research, questionable peer review, the privatization of public knowledge via commercial publishers, etc.) are downplayed or ignored. This leads to what I think is one of the most important questions for science communication researchers and practitioners today, namely: How can we communicate transparently about the less positive aspects of science without undermining trust in the scientific endeavor as a whole?
A first step, I think, is to create more platforms to engage in open discussions with people who hold these different perspectives, so that we can foster balanced and critical metareflection on science communication in Belgium (and beyond).
Finally, and more concretely, we discussed ways to bring relevant science journalism research to people working in the field. In the coming months, we will try a LinkedIn newsletter with tips from academics in our network. Given that we want to reach people locally, we will start by doing this in Dutch, though nothing is set in stone and we are happy to hear what would work best.
This event took place on 12 August 2024 at the Opera Campus of KU Leuven in Antwerp. The following researchers attended it: Marie Verstappen (KU Leuven), Sofie Verkest (Ghent University), Anouk de Jong (University of Twente), Anna Heerdink (Leiden University), Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven), Miguel Vissers (Antwerp University). In the afternoon, we were joined by practitioners Liesbeth Aerts (freelance), Anna Dams (Institute of Tropical Medicine), and Mieke Sterken (International Polar Foundation).
Many thanks to those who joined us, but also to those who couldn't make it due to illness or conflicting schedules: Priscilla Van Even (KU Leuven), Aike Vonk (Utrecht University), Ingrid van Marion (Université Libre de Bruxelles), Kim Verhaeghe (Eos Magazine), and Nieske Vergunst (Universiteit Utrecht).
I would also like to explicitly thank NeFCA and the research promotion fund of the Arts Faculty at KU Leuven—Antwerp for their financial support in organizing this event.
Comments