The Center for Media Engagement surveyed journalists and scientists to better understand their experiences in the production of science news. This report is the third in a series of reports that have been produced in partnership with SciLine, an organization based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The quantitative findings detailed in this report (e.g., journalists feel moderately effective in their ability to report about science and only moderately supported in their efforts; journalists and scientists generally trust each other, although journalists’ feelings of trust for scientists are mostly higher; journalists and scientists have strong, positive feelings of trust related to the SciLine service) support the previous two reports where journalists and scientists were interviewed about their experiences working with one another and their experiences using SciLine’s expert matching service. We identified nine key findings from the survey data that suggest the following recommendations for journalists, scientists, and SciLine:
SciLine can help support journalists who feel they are somewhat alone in producing science news by evolving and/or developing services that build networks and community.
Although scientists and journalists largely reported positive experiences interacting with one another, this relationship may be improved by setting clear expectations regarding scientists’ limited influence over the story.
Scientists and journalists rate the importance of communication goals and stakeholders similarly, but journalists think scientists should focus more on broadening participation in science communication.
SciLine could offer or support more communication training opportunities for scientists, including training on how to evaluate whether a journalist requesting an interview would be a good match.
SciLine should emphasize the value of participating in the expert matching service to scientists while maintaining quality for journalist users.
BACKGROUND
Journalists and scientists are essential actors in the production of science news. Historically, journalists have used scientists as key sources for news articles about science topics and scientists have participated in interviews as a primary form of engagement with the public.1 While journalists and scientists may value one another in the context of science news, scholars have pointed out tensions relating to how journalists and scientists understand one another’s role in the production of science news and their abilities to understand science topics and public communication, respectively.2 However, the contemporary science media environment is quite different from the context in which many of these studies were conducted. While science news was historically reported by specialized science journalists, it is now often covered by reporters who may not be as experienced in covering science topics.3 Additionally, digital media technologies now allow scientists to communicate directly with the public in ways that were not previously possible.4 These same digital technologies have allowed for the proliferation of niche science news outlets that may compete with legacy media institutions.5
These changes in the science news ecology suggest a need to conduct research that updates our understanding of the production of science news from the perspective of the groups of actors that produce it.
We have addressed this research gap in previous reports of interview studies with journalists and scientists who have participated in the SciLine expert matching service that helps journalists find scientists who can serve as expert sources. In these studies, we presented narrative data that detailed the experiences of scientists and journalists in a science media environment that is marked by increasingly less stable legacy media institutions and greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lack of public trust in science news. That said, the qualitative nature of these studies left open questions such as the prevalence of key attitudes and perceptions relevant to the production of science news among scientists and journalists.
To address these questions, the Center for Media Engagement developed a web-based survey of journalists and scientists who have participated in SciLine’s expert matching service at least once. Specifically, this survey focused on questions relating to: scientists’ and journalists’ (1) experience using SciLine’s expert matching service, (2) experience working with one another to produce science news stories, (3) perceived trust in one another, (4) perceived skills and attitudes related to science journalism, and (5) perceptions related to public engagement with science generally.
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Key Findings
Journalists feel moderately effective in their ability to report about science; there are opportunities to increase their feelings of occupational efficacy.
Journalists feel only moderately supported when it comes to reporting about science; there are opportunities to lessen feelings of occupational isolation.
Journalists and scientists describe their recent interactions with each other as predominantly positive (e.g., respectful, pleasant, accommodating).
Only half of scientists regularly vet journalists before agreeing to do an interview.
Journalists and scientists generally trust each other, although journalists’ feelings of trust for scientists are mostly higher than vice versa.
Journalists and scientists have similar views on which stakeholders are the most important for science communication (e.g., policymakers, youth/students, media professionals) and the least important (e.g., private sector, people from specific values-focused identity groups).
Journalists and scientists have similar views on the most important goals for science communication (e.g., increasing the likelihood that people consider scientific evidence when making decisions) and the least important (e.g., listening to what others think about scientific issues, ensuring that scientists make the best possible research decisions).
Journalists and scientists both strongly agree that scientists should receive training on becoming better communicators.
Both journalists and scientists have strong, positive feelings of trust related to the SciLine service, although journalists’ feelings of trust are slightly higher.
Journalists overwhelmingly regard the SciLine service as being helpful, fast, and accessible.
Of the various services provided by SciLine, journalists most value their help identifying relevant and responsive experts.
Journalists are 83% more likely to reach out to a scientist whom they found through SciLine than at another place.
Fifty percent of scientists say they are somewhat or much more likely to accept an interview request from a journalist sent by SciLine.
Recommendations
SciLine can help support journalists who feel they are somewhat alone in producing science news by evolving and/or developing services that build networks and community.
Although scientists and journalists largely reported positive experiences interacting with one another, this relationship may be improved by setting clear expectations regarding influence over the story.
Scientists and journalists rate the importance of communication goals and stakeholders similarly, but journalists think scientists should focus more on broadening participation in science communication.
SciLine could offer or support more communication training opportunities for scientists, including how to evaluate if a journalist requesting an interview would be a good match.
SciLine should emphasize the value of participating in the expert matching service to scientists while maintaining quality for journalist users.