Exploring the intersections: researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the organizational role of science communication

Abstract

PurposeThis paper reports on research exploring the intersections between researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the objectives, funders and organizational influences on their science communication practices.Design/methodology/approachExamining one context, the inter-organizational BCDC Energy Research project based at five different research organizations in Finland, this paper presents data from semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and 15 communication professionals.FindingsThe results suggest that performance-based funding policies that drive the proliferation of large-scale research projects can create challenges. In particular, a challenge arises in generating a shared sense of identity and purpose amongst researchers and communication professionals. This may have unintended negative impacts on the quality and cohesiveness of the science communication which occurs.Research limitations/implicationsThe study was exploratory in nature and focuses on one organizational and institutional environment. Further research with a wider number of projects, as well as funders, would be conducive to a greater understanding of the issues involved.Practical implicationsOn a practical level, this research suggests that the creation of clearer communications awareness and guidance may be helpful in some large-scale projects, particularly involving broad numbers of organizations, individual researchers and funders.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies examining the perspectives of both researchers and communication professionals working over one project, drawing together a range of different institutional and disciplinary perspectives. The results highlight the importance of the influences of funding on science communication aims, assumptions, cultures and structures. The article articulates the need for further research in this area.

Exploring the digital media ecology: insights from a study of healthy diets and climate change communication on digital and social media

“…scientists [Petersen, Vincent and Westerling, 2019;Collins, Shiffman and Rock, 2016;Wilkinson and Weitkamp, 2013] and journalists [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011;Schäfer and Painter, 2021], or on particular digital media platforms [e.g Milani, Weitkamp and Webb, 2020;Pavelle and Wilkinson, 2020;Saboia et al, 2018;Su et al, 2017;Muñoz Morcillo, Czurda and Robertson-von Trotha, 2016;Spartz et al, 2017]. Studies of scientists and researchers suggest some limited presence online, with a focus on platforms such as Twitter [Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020;Collins, Shiffman and Rock, 2016].…”

“…Questions arise about the role of social media in providing a space where new types of opinion leaders can have access to a range of new publics, potentially reducing the role of gatekeeper traditionally afforded to journalists. This could have a democratising effect [Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020], opening up spaces for new types of communicators to contribute to online science discourses. In the context of Twitter, Murthy [2018] points out that whether Twitter is democratising depends on who is able to achieve the status of influencer, or opinion leader, and whether this includes groups who would not traditionally be able to access legacy media.…”

“…With the growing diversity of digital platforms has come an increasing diversity of communicators, and it is now possible for anyone to enter the communications fray [see e.g. Bruns, 2008], including organisations (such as research institutes, governments and museums) seeking to reach publics directly [Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020], as well as individuals such as scientists, activists and a range of interested 'non-professionals' in the context of science communication. In this digital context, 'audiences are turning into active participants' [Schäfer, 2017, p. 52] in public discourses on scientific issues, and thus, those who we might previously have thought of as consumers of news and information about science, may now comment and contribute to this discourse, leading to a digital media ecology for science that is 'pluralistic, participatory and social' [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011, p. 778].…”

Into the Digital Wild: Utilizing Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook for Effective Science and Environmental Communication

“…Social media has facilitated large scale science-focused initiatives, notably health campaigns (Koohy and Koohy, 2014) and some environmental projects (Aldred, 2016;Ballard et al, 2017;Plastic Patrol, 2017) highlighting the far-reaching influence social media can have on actions, attitudes, and behaviors (Centola, 2010, Korda andItani, 2013). Despite such potential, and many corporate businesses regarding social media presence as, "top of the agenda" (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 59), academic institutions are said to fall behind in their online activity (Peters et al, 2008;Liang et al, 2014;Jarreau and Yammine, 2017;Howell et al, 2019;Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020), despite the value it can bring for public engagement (Bernhardt et al, 2011;Wilkinson and Weitkamp, 2016). Engagement is often considered effective if it results in behavioral or attitudinal change, particularly around issues such as climate change, health, and the environment (Lorenzoni et al, 2007;Corner and Randall, 2011) and sites such as Twitter are known to facilitate such interaction outcomes (Simis- Wilkinson et al, 2018).…”

“On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators

“…Future research would be beneficial on the potentially positive effects of digital mediatization triggering a reassessment of academic discourse practices-in addition to the prevalent critical perspectives on mediatization. The complex digital environment and new variations in science communication allow and call for (Dudo & Besley, 2016) or transferring information beyond deficit-participatory modes, opening the floor for alternative trajectories and future research on science communication, including issues of digital culture and identity (Davies & Horst, 2016;Mendel & Riesch, 2018), as well as organizational influence (Koivumäki & Wilkinson, 2020). This study was exploratory in nature, focusing on researchers in one research project in one country.…”