Strategic lessons on science communication from research on citizen science partnerships
As a former academic, I’ve had the pleasure of attending dozens of PhD defenses over the years. Some mainly for moral support, others for the actual results. Last October, I was on my way to Ghent for both, looking forward to the PhD defense of fellow BE SciComm board member Sofie Verkest.
Finally, a PhD defense in the field of science communication—at a Belgian university! I wanted to experience this rare event first-hand. Even if this meant sitting through a presentation and examination in a field of science very different from my own: linguistics. As I was walking towards the venue, I was wondering how much a ‘beta-scientist’ like me would even be able to understand.
That worry turned out to be completely unfounded, as Sofie Verkest gave an excellent and accessible overview of the goals, methods, and results of her PhD research, which centers around a large-scale citizen science project on air quality. The citizen science project was a collaborative effort between journalists, scientists, and a government agency, and Sofie conducted an ethnographic investigation offering unique insights into the relationships and dynamics between these partners, and the nuanced roles each party plays in shaping how science reaches the public.
Her work critically examines many questions, and one in particular resonated deeply with me: where does scientific analysis stop, and where does journalistic interpretation begin? Unsurprisingly, the answer is: it’s complicated… I’d like to zoom in on the findings presented in one of the chapters in Sofie Verkests’ PhD, also published as a paper in Journalism, and how they might help us do a better job as science communicators.
Studying power dynamics
In science communication, partnerships between scientists, journalists, and other societal actors are becoming more common, more essential, and at the same time more challenging. Nowhere is this more evident than in large collaborative projects, where the roles of different stakeholders might overlap.
Sofie Verkest’s work provides a rare window into the backstage interactions between journalists and scientists in the context of a large-scale citizen science project. The project, which focused on measuring nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution across Flanders, was set up by a newspaper in collaboration with a university and government agency. Verkest observed this partnership through a linguistic ethnographic lens, participating as an observer in meetings between the three collaborating partners.
At the heart of Sofie Verkest’s approach is the concept of interpretive power—the ability to shape how scientific information is communicated to the public. Traditionally, journalists have held the reins of interpretation, taking scientific results and crafting them into a narrative that fits the news cycle. However, Verkest’s study complicates this view by showing that scientists are very much taking part in this interpretive work.
In the meetings she observed, it became clear that scientists did more than provide scientific data and results; they were involved in decisions about how the data should be contextualized and what the key messages should be. This process highlights that interpretation is not a one-way street. Instead, both journalists and scientists bring their own cultural categories and social positions to the table, shaping the final product in ways that reflect both fields.
This collaborative process could, and did in fact, lead to tensions. Verkest recorded instances of strong negotiations over wording, headlines, and the prioritization of results, with both sides vying to have their interpretation reflected in the final news product.
This power struggle is not necessarily a negative thing. As Verkest points out, these “interpretive sparring matches” can lead to richer, more nuanced reporting. When scientists are actively involved in shaping how their findings are communicated, the public gets a more accurate picture of the science behind the story. However, it also poses a challenge for science communicators: how can we successfully navigate these power dynamics while ensuring both clarity and accuracy?
Navigating interpretive roles
Verkest’s research brings to light several valuable lessons, especially for science communicators who work with both journalists and researchers. A central takeaway is the importance of recognizing one’s own interpretive role in such partnerships. In collaborative settings, communicators often find themselves balancing two responsibilities: sharing scientific data and engaging in the interpretive work needed to make that data relatable. As Verkest’s study illustrates, this distinction isn’t always clear, and science communicators need to be aware of when they are shifting from information delivery to interpretation.
Setting clear expectations early in the process can also prevent misunderstandings later on. Verkest’s findings show that role confusion—such as scientists taking on interpretive tasks typically reserved for journalists—can lead to friction if not managed proactively.
Finally, reflexivity is key. Sofie Verkest emphasizes that science communicators must remain conscious of their own biases and professional assumptions, particularly when mediating between fields with different priorities. For science communicators, adopting a reflexive approach can make these collaborative efforts more constructive.
Embracing new models of collaboration
The rise of citizen science, growing public interest in scientific issues, and the increasing demand for transparency in research mean that partnerships between scientists, journalists, and communicators will only become more frequent—and more complex.
Science communicators will need to develop skills in facilitating such collaborations, where tensions around interpretive authority are inevitable, but can be productive if managed well. Communicators who can navigate these challenges, facilitating a shared interpretive space where all partners feel empowered to contribute, will be better positioned to lead successful, multi-stakeholder projects. This will require a collaborative mindset and a willingness to embrace the messiness of interdisciplinary work.
For those interested in further exploring her research, Sofie Verkest’s PhD work includes additional publications that dissect different aspects of journalist-scientist-policymaker interactions and the nuances of citizen science. Her broader body of work is well worth the read for anyone invested in responsible science communication.
_
Reference: Negotiating interpretive power: Interpretive practices in journalist-scientist interactions. S Verkest - Journalism, 2024
Commentaires