RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Research Question: Does popularising science in the media detract from its scientific
credibility?

A) What style of science communication do different audiences consume?

B) What science communication is currently available to these audiences?

As social networking and cultural platforms gain momentum as viable media outlets for
professional and amateur communicators alike, the landscape of journalism is shifting.
Popular science communication in particular is taking new forms as many new producers are
forced to devise more ways to engage viewers with science news.
Treise and Weigold (2002) reported that many contemporary scholars in science
communication believe that science is not effectively communicated to the public. They
propose that this may be because those who cover science frequently lack anything more than
a basic scientific background. It seems to be the case that in todays science communication
industry, the ability to engage an audience is more important than the scientific experience of
the presenter. However popularising science is a controversial topic in the science
communication industry. Phillips (2001) argues that most science communicators think that
science has to be sold to the public by making it sexy and cool, when it should instead
be presented on its own merits. On the contrary, Nolch (2001) argues that science
communicators should broadcast in their own unique styles to appeal to more demographics.
Expanding on this, the proposed study will investigate how science news is currently
consumed by the public to determine what presentation styles appeal to which audience.
Currently there is substantial literature on science communication. However through research
it was noted that most articles discussing science communication frameworks were
conceptual essays, and limited testing had been done to identify target audiences. For
example, Fischhoff and Scheufele (2013) argue that science communication should be twoway, and interactive so that scientists can listen to their audiences. Kulkarni (2013) argues
that it should be detail heavy, precise and modest. On the contrary, Bucchi (2013) makes a
case for more stylised communication of science. This articles aims to contribute empirical
data to this debate to see what forms and styles of science journalism different demographics
consume.
The study will be conducted in two parts in order to meet the two research questions. The
first component will be a survey of the population using the framework proposed by Groves

et al. (2009). Due to limited budget and timeframe, this survey would best be conducted both
in an online format and cold calling. Emails, letters and calls will be addressed to willing
participants and it will be important to ensure that participants are from a broad age group
and demographic to align with the first research question. The survey will include simple
questions based on science media consumption by the participants. Some example questions
are as follows:

Where do you obtain most of your science news or information from?

What was the last source of science information you consumed and where was it

from?
Which platform do you prefer to consume science news on, and is the same as regular

news?
Rate your interest in the following presentations of science on a scale of how likely
you would consume it: Scientific newspaper articles, scientific YouTube channels,
television programs like Catalyst, documentaries, social media sites, cinematic
productions such as An Inconvenient Truth etc.

The next component is the media content analysis to determine how appropriate current
media distribution of science is. Over the time period allocated, programming on TV and
radio as well as articles in major newspapers and online with scientific content will be tallied.
This will determine how much circulation different forms of scientific communication
respectively receive.
Below is the proposed timeline for the three month period.
Week 1 2: Literature Review. Begin content analysis. Construct survey
Week 3 8: Conduct surveys
Week 8 10: Process surveys and identify trends in consumption.
Week 10 12: Write draft
Week 13: Submit for review

The results of the population and media will be processed to determine how much of the
available scientific media is being consumed by the appropriate audiences. The results of the
population survey will determine what age groups and education backgrounds prefer out of

the available formats and styles. For example, it is expected that institutionally educated
groups will prefer more content heavy outlets such as Q&A, whereas younger groups will
value production over content. The results of the media content analysis will determine if
supply is meeting demand of science content. For example, it may be the case that a larger
percentage of audiences seek high production values from their science content, but we may
find that the supply of this format is lacking compared to others.
Confirming hypotheses such as these will provide a strong grounding for the discussions
previously mentioned. The conclusions made by this study will be useful for those wishing to
define an effective science communication model as the evidence provided will allow
producers to tailor their content to the appropriate style and audience. Additionally, this study
provides an excellent foundation for further manipulative research. One such experiment
could be to take the same scientific content and repackage it into different styles and formats
and testing subjects as to which they find most engaging and productive. Research like this
into science communication will allow the construction of better science media, and thus a
more scientifically informed population.

REFERENCES
Bucchi, M. (2013) Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8),
904-915.
Fischhoff, B., and Scheufele, D. A. (2013) The science of science communication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 43-45.
Friedman, S. (1986) The journalists world. In Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S. and Roger, C. L.
(Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp.17-41). New York: Free
Press.
Groves, R. M., Folwer, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R.
(2009). Survey Methodology (Second Edition). John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Kulkarni, P. (2013). Rethinking Science Communication. Issues in Science and
Technology, 30, 25-29.
Nolch, G. (2001). Australian Science Editorial. Australiasian Science, 22(6), 2.

Phillips, S. (2001). Science Communication, warts-and-all. Australasian Science, 22(6), 4243.

Treise, D. and Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing Science Communication: A survey of
science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.