Source: Pixaby Briefly analysed
Science, economy or politics – all systems follow their own processes and procedures. As a citizen, it is impossible to understand them completely down to the last detail. That does not have to be the case. But everyone should have a general idea. Because the systems influence everyday life. In relation to science, many do not know how it comes to it’s results. This has to change. Science communication and public engagement (PE) have a duty here. If people understand why scientists revise statements, they can trust science more easily. The best way for PE and SciComm representatives to reach people is through a co-creative process. In addition to citizens, journalists and public engagement professionals should also communicate science methods more effectively.
System Scientific processes are complex and not all citizens are aware of them. For a long-term trust, communication of methods is absolutely necessary. We explain why.
How does science actually work? We, who are involved in any way, do not ask ourselves this question. Nor do citizens concern themselves with the system itself. And yet it is important that they understand it fundamentally. Why?
A somewhat abstract everyday example
| Last year, there were around 42.8 million drivers1 of motor vehicles out of a total of 83.2 million inhabitants2 in Germany. Apart from children, the majority of the population can drive a car. Most people don’t think about how the engine works and why the car drives. They just drive it. But inevitably they know superficially how it drives. Let’s apply this example to science: the public knows that the system produces knowledge. To stay with the car example, they know how to steer. They do not know how to drive the car, i.e., what methods science uses. Of course, the public does not have to understand the processes of research in detail. But they should know basic methods. Only then they understand why researchers sometimes revise their results. |
Understanding of methods is necessary
The majority of the population trusts science. Their findings are – often subconsciously – the basis for decisions and actions. In the last two years, scientific results have been more present than ever. The media reported daily on Covid-19. Sometimes scientists revised their statements. This unsettled a part of the people. If they had understood the system of science and its methods, their reaction would have been different.
Contradiction between expectation and system
The presence of the pandemic is directly noticeable, unlike the climate change or biodiversity loss. By now, almost everyone knows someone who has had the disease. This is frightening. People expect reliable knowledge. But science cannot always provide this. It does not correspond to its mode of operation, because science must be falsifiable. Representatives of science communication and public engagement should communicate this important component of the system. Otherwise, once a statement is revised, trust may diminish and people may be more likely to believe fake news or even conspiracy narratives. According to Professor Tom Schaberg, former chief physician of the Center for Pneumology in Rotenburg more than two-thirds of the 16 million unvaccinated (date February 2022) can probably be convinced3 if they are specifically educated. This includes communicating the methods.
Co-creative collaboration
How should the communication of scientific methods work? It is most effective when representatives actively bring them to the public through public engagement. The best way is to develop the projects in a co-creative approach with the target group. For example, with populists. It is clear that this requires resources and time. But it is necessary, because: “Science-related populists assert that academic elites produce knowledge that is useless because it allegedly employs unreliable methods […]. “4 If engagement projects reach them, they could stimulate a rethinking. After all, understanding is the prerequisite for knowledge.
Appropriate language for the target group
Of course, every engagement has to be suitable for the target group – or better the type of citizen. To better address the target group, the classification into types according to the study “The Other German Division” by More in Common5 is suitable. The researchers developed six types of society. For example, there are the angry types. They are more distrustful than other types. In order to reach such types, it is important to use their language. The terms should reduce complex things, but still be appropriate for the scientific system.
The right choice of terms
Not only the public should have a basic understanding of methods, but also journalists and public relations professionals. Here is an example from one of our earlier articles: “Researchers at the University of Tübingen succeeded in vaccinating people against malaria under laboratory conditions. PR communicates: breakthrough in malaria research – vaccine found. This, despite the fact that it is rather a progress or a promising first step. This does not mean that no one in Africa will have malaria in two years’ time.” If the PR department – besides other factors (e.g. questioning whether the study is really newsworthy) – had followed the methods of science, such a statement would not have been made. Science is a process and this should be communicated. Instead of generating clickbaiting with terms like breakthrough. It would be better to explain the system. That way, people understand why the current state of research is merely progress. If, instead, there is talk of a breakthrough that is not a breakthrough at all, this will lead to a loss of trust in the long term. This is not helpful for a functioning democracy.
Communication of methods
| ADVANTAGES – public understands the science system – public can better classify news – increases credibility – leads to trust in the long run – journalists are sensitized, less sensational news is produced – journalists ideally communicate methods with the public IMPLEMENTATION – plan public engagement project in co-creative approach with target group – use understandable terms that do justice to the scientific system |
Sources
1 Statistiken zum Thema Autofahrer | Statista
2 Bevölkerungsstand: Amtliche Einwohnerzahl Deutschlands 2022 – Statistisches Bundesamt (destatis.de)
3 Keine Gespräche mit Corona-Leugnern: „Losgelöst von der Wirklichkeit“ (kreiszeitung.de)
Studies
5 Die 6 Typen der deutschen Gesellschaft (dieandereteilung.de)