ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Brossard aaas 13 0214

?
?
Dominique Brossard
Dominique Brossard

This document discusses the changing landscape of science communication in online environments. It notes that more scientists now directly communicate findings online through blogging. Younger scientists in particular see value in immediately sharing new discoveries publicly. However, shifts toward online science information are not uniform across all groups. The document also examines how search engines and comments may influence audiences' views on science topics, with rude comments found to increase polarization. It argues that science communication research must inform online outreach practices in this evolving environment.

1 of 23
Science and the Public In New Information Environments Dominique Brossard, Professor Department of Life Sciences Communication College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies AAAS 2013, Boston MA, February 14, 2013
This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online content and science ?? To comment or not to comment?
Science Communication is Redefined ¡°it¡¯s not possible to talk about science blogging without talking about scientists blogging, or more broadly about scientists writing.¡± Franci, M. (2011). Nature Chemistry 3, 183-184
¡­Direct Communication Endorsed Particularly By Younger Scientists ?? cohort shifts with more junior scientists thinking that ¡°[n]ew findings of public interest should be communicated to the public immediately¡± (Data based on: Corley et al. 2011) 4
¡­ And (Science) Information Can Go Viral ?? Political news through indirect channnels ?? Penn Virality study Berger & Milkman 2010 5
THE PROMISE OF THE New Communication Environments ¡­ NEW INATION COMEALTH ?? provide essentially unlimited information ?? on a large number of issues, ?? which can be obtained anywhere and ?? with relatively limited effort ?? and opportunities for citizens to connect with others through social media and other 2.0-type tools to make sense of this information 10
This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online conversations about science ?? To comment or not to comment?
A New Active Online Science Audience Online National Science Board 2012 15
Aggregate Cohort Shifts Among Audiences For Science Information Su et al.. 2012 12
But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE 60 NOT ACROSS THE BOARD (scale range partially displayed) male 55 female Percentage 50 45 40 Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.) (23% of pop.) mixed (34% of pop.) Su et al. 2012 13
BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board NOT ACROSS THE BOARD 65 Education low (scale range partially displayed) 60 Education high 55 Percentage 50 45 40 35 Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.) (23% of pop.) mixed (34% of pop.) Su et al. 2012 14
This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online content and science ?? To comment or not to comment?
What Do These New Information Environments Look Like for the Science Information Consumer? ?? For nanotechnology, discrepancy between ?? Searches: ?? what people look for (tracked by Nielsen online) ?? Results: ?? what search terms are suggested to them (Google suggest data) ?? what they find (content analysis of top ranked search results in Google) Ladwig et al. 2010 17
What This Means for Science-Informed Audiences ?? Potential of ¡°self-reinforcing informational spirals¡± Page Google ranks Suggestions Traffic Searches ?? Are opinions formed based on how Google presents results rather than on what individuals are searching? Li et al. 2011; Brossard & Scheufele 2013 18
Information is Contextualized ?? Online newspaper articles or TV shows not consumed in isolated fashion, but contextualized ?? reader comments and feedback ?? Facebook posts/links with ¡°Like¡± buttons and comments from other users ?? Tweets - RT ?? ¡­ ?? ¡­ how are these formats impacting consumers views? 19
Online Conversations Are Not Neutral Emotions Uncertainty Disagreement Name calling
Tone of Comments In Blogs Change Our Judgments About Online Science Stories ?? Experiment involving a representative sample of the American population (N=1,183) ?? Subjects randomly assigned to 2 types of comments following a balanced news story about nanosilver: ?? Rude blog comments ?? Civil blog comments Anderson et al. (in press) 20
Predicting Nanotechnology Risk Perception (benefits < risk)
In a nutshell ¡­ People who read the uncivil comments (which use the same screen names and content and just differ on the tone) end up walking away from the story with a much more polarized understanding of the actual risks connected with nano
Brossard aaas 13 0214
Brossard aaas 13 0214
In Sum ¡­ ?? An evolving science communication environment, in which the science information consumer constantly encounters contextualized information in an online world ?? How do we deal with comments? ?? Research in science communication needs to inform online science communication practice 21
Thank you <dbrossard@wisc.edu> Twitter: @brossardd lsc.wisc.edu scimep.wisc.edu

More Related Content

Brossard aaas 13 0214

  • 1. Science and the Public In New Information Environments Dominique Brossard, Professor Department of Life Sciences Communication College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies AAAS 2013, Boston MA, February 14, 2013
  • 2. This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online content and science ?? To comment or not to comment?
  • 3. Science Communication is Redefined ¡°it¡¯s not possible to talk about science blogging without talking about scientists blogging, or more broadly about scientists writing.¡± Franci, M. (2011). Nature Chemistry 3, 183-184
  • 4. ¡­Direct Communication Endorsed Particularly By Younger Scientists ?? cohort shifts with more junior scientists thinking that ¡°[n]ew findings of public interest should be communicated to the public immediately¡± (Data based on: Corley et al. 2011) 4
  • 5. ¡­ And (Science) Information Can Go Viral ?? Political news through indirect channnels ?? Penn Virality study Berger & Milkman 2010 5
  • 6. THE PROMISE OF THE New Communication Environments ¡­ NEW INATION COMEALTH ?? provide essentially unlimited information ?? on a large number of issues, ?? which can be obtained anywhere and ?? with relatively limited effort ?? and opportunities for citizens to connect with others through social media and other 2.0-type tools to make sense of this information 10
  • 7. This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online conversations about science ?? To comment or not to comment?
  • 8. A New Active Online Science Audience Online National Science Board 2012 15
  • 9. Aggregate Cohort Shifts Among Audiences For Science Information Su et al.. 2012 12
  • 10. But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE 60 NOT ACROSS THE BOARD (scale range partially displayed) male 55 female Percentage 50 45 40 Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.) (23% of pop.) mixed (34% of pop.) Su et al. 2012 13
  • 11. BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board NOT ACROSS THE BOARD 65 Education low (scale range partially displayed) 60 Education high 55 Percentage 50 45 40 35 Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.) (23% of pop.) mixed (34% of pop.) Su et al. 2012 14
  • 12. This Talk: An Overview ?? The online environment for science news ?? The science information consumer ?? Online content and science ?? To comment or not to comment?
  • 13. What Do These New Information Environments Look Like for the Science Information Consumer? ?? For nanotechnology, discrepancy between ?? Searches: ?? what people look for (tracked by Nielsen online) ?? Results: ?? what search terms are suggested to them (Google suggest data) ?? what they find (content analysis of top ranked search results in Google) Ladwig et al. 2010 17
  • 14. What This Means for Science-Informed Audiences ?? Potential of ¡°self-reinforcing informational spirals¡± Page Google ranks Suggestions Traffic Searches ?? Are opinions formed based on how Google presents results rather than on what individuals are searching? Li et al. 2011; Brossard & Scheufele 2013 18
  • 15. Information is Contextualized ?? Online newspaper articles or TV shows not consumed in isolated fashion, but contextualized ?? reader comments and feedback ?? Facebook posts/links with ¡°Like¡± buttons and comments from other users ?? Tweets - RT ?? ¡­ ?? ¡­ how are these formats impacting consumers views? 19
  • 16. Online Conversations Are Not Neutral Emotions Uncertainty Disagreement Name calling
  • 17. Tone of Comments In Blogs Change Our Judgments About Online Science Stories ?? Experiment involving a representative sample of the American population (N=1,183) ?? Subjects randomly assigned to 2 types of comments following a balanced news story about nanosilver: ?? Rude blog comments ?? Civil blog comments Anderson et al. (in press) 20
  • 18. Predicting Nanotechnology Risk Perception (benefits < risk)
  • 19. In a nutshell ¡­ People who read the uncivil comments (which use the same screen names and content and just differ on the tone) end up walking away from the story with a much more polarized understanding of the actual risks connected with nano
  • 22. In Sum ¡­ ?? An evolving science communication environment, in which the science information consumer constantly encounters contextualized information in an online world ?? How do we deal with comments? ?? Research in science communication needs to inform online science communication practice 21
  • 23. Thank you <dbrossard@wisc.edu> Twitter: @brossardd lsc.wisc.edu scimep.wisc.edu