How valuable is formal science training to science journalists?

Abstract

The science writing community in the United States increasingly privileges formal science training as part of a science journalist's 'tool kit.' This article asks if existing research supports the argument that such formal training offers attributes critical to a science writer's work and finds that the answer is no. In studies of journalists generally, as well as a very small number of studies of science writers specifically, newsroom socialization and number of years on the job are more important predictors of journalists' levels of knowledge and their attitudes about professional behaviors than is the nature or extent of the their formal education. The article closes by posing a set of research questions that may permit a better understanding of the possible role of education in the work of science journalists.

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

“…For scientists, barriers relate to scientists' lack of knowledge of how science-media interactions work, previous negative experiences and criticism towards the way science is covered in the media rather than that they relate to practical issues. Dunwoody [2004] argued that this criticism is the result of the scientists' tendency to view their peers as the main audience, while journalists believe that their readers are not interested in that level of detail that scientists would discuss with peers and, therefore, bringing across one or two accurate short take-home messages is more important. In addition, she argues that coverage of science follows journalistic rather than scientific norms, which leads to different expectations of journalists and scientists.…”

Science & Journalism: Bridging the Gaps Through Specialty Training

“…Another 12.5% said they think about science about half the time, while 29% reported only sometimes thinking about science as it relates to their stories (see Table 3). In line with these results, Dunwoody (2004) outlined how time on the job and newsroom socialization were more important factors than formal science education for determining quality journalism. As Dunwoody (2004) notes: "When an individual enters a newsroom and its accompanying occupation, powerful forces will work to shape her notion of what constitutes 'good work,' and accumulating years on the job will give her an increasingly complex topic knowledge base" (85).…”

“…Even though training and professional education seems essential for equipping journalists with the tools to compellingly convey complex science information to the public, there are only a few studies to date that review the effects of science journalism training (Beam, Spratt, and John 2015;Becker et al 2006;Dunwoody 2004;Smith, Menezes, and Gilbert 2018). The lack of evaluations for training programs of any kind could be related to the inherent difficulties present in funding, designing, and administering evaluation research.…”

Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences

“…Another common problem in terms of target audience is that many scientists consider their peers as their main audience when they appear in the media (Dijkstra et al, 2015;Dunwoody, 2004;Peters, 2013): scientists tend to be more concerned about the judgment of their colleagues than about the response of the general audience. Peters (2013) described a survey among biomedical scientists in Germany and the US, in which they were asked which conditions they thought were important to their peers before they or other scientists appeared in the media: scientists should be of excellent scientific reputation and have broad experience on the topic in question; stick to the facts and avoid going beyond the facts; and avoid putting the spotlight on themselves.…”

“…Dunwoody (2004) states that training in science helps journalists become sensitive to scientific language and to evaluate evidence. She illustrates this with a story about three former players of a professional football team in the US who were diagnosed with ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a rapid and devastating neurodegenerative disease).…”