Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Australian Journalism Review
  4. Volume 46, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 46, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0810-2686
  • E-ISSN: 2517-620X

Abstract

While overall levels of trust and interest in science are high, a significant proportion of audiences are distrustful of or disinterested in science. This is not an esoteric concern. Science literacy is important for the meaningful participation of the public in discussions about the impact of science on society at a time when many key global problems have some basis in science. There are also private benefits for individuals, like preventing them from being misled by misinformation and disinformation. What can science journalists do to address these issues? Using a global media ethics lens, this study deployed a mixed methods approach including surveys and semi-structured interviews, to evaluate how science journalists can produce stories that better engage audiences with science, thereby potentially increasing science literacy. By revealing the cultural barriers holding science back, inherent tensions between journalistic working practices and conveying the true nature of science but also how these might be overcome, the project outlined what strong science journalism could look like in Australia in 2024.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Monash University Faculty of Arts Honours Merit Scholarship
© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ajr_00165_1
2024-10-31
2025-05-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 3M State of Science Index (2023), ‘The State of Science Index: 2023 Global Report’, 24 May, https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/3m-forward-us/about-the-survey/. Accessed 21 January 2024.
  2. Amberg, A. and Saunders, D. N. (2020), ‘Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research’, PLOS ONE, 15:11, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242133.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amend, E., Capurro, G. and Secko, D. M. (2014), ‘Grasping scientific news’, Journalism Practice, 8:6, pp. 789–808, https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.868146.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2019), ‘Digital platforms inquiry: Final report’, 26 July, https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/digital-platforms-inquiry-final-report. Accessed 31 July 2021.
  5. Batsell, J. (2015), Engaged Journalism: Connecting with Digitally Empowered News Audiences, New York: Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O’Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L. and Caulfield, T. (2009), ‘Science communication reconsidered’, Nature Biotechnology, 27:6, pp. 514–18, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cormick, C. (2014a), Community Attitudes Towards Science and Technology in Australia, Canberra: CSIRO, https://doi.org/10.4225/08/584d973cd56f7.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cormick, C. (2014b), ‘Social research into public attitudes towards new technologies’, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 9:Suppl 1, pp. S39–45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0887-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cormick, C. (2019), The Science of Communicating Science: The Ultimate Guide, Clayton: CSIRO Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dentzer, S. (2009), ‘Communicating medical news: Pitfalls of health care journalism’, New England Journal of Medicine, 360:1, pp. 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0805753.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dodd, A. and Ricketson, M. (2021), Upheaval: Disrupted Lives in Journalism, Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunwoody, S. (2014), ‘Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age’, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd ed., London: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 27–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Edelman Trust Barometer (2024), ‘2024 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report’, 15 January, https://www.edelman.com/trust/2024/trust-barometer. Accessed 21 January 2024.
  14. EthicalJobs (2023), ‘Climate lead, Climate Team: Flexible location’, 19 October, https://www.ethicaljobs.com.au/members/abcrecruitment/climate-lead-climate-team-flexible-location?sectors=2. Accessed 20 January 2024.
  15. Galletta, A. (2013), Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond from Research Design to Analysis and Publication, New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Guzmán, M. (2016), ‘What exactly is engagement and what difference does it make?’, American Press Institute, 2 May, https://americanpressinstitute.org/what-is-engagement/. Accessed 27 January 2024.
  17. Heerwegh, D. and Loosveldt, G. (2006), ‘An experimental study on the effects of personalization, survey length statements, progress indicators, and survey sponsor logos in web surveys’, Journal of Official Statistics, 22:2, pp. 191–210, https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ff271eeeca694f47ae99b942de61df83/an-experimental-study-on-the-effects-of-personalization-survey-length-statements-progress-indicators-and-survey-sponsor-logos-in-web-surveys.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Henningham, J. (1995), ‘Who are Australia’s science journalists?’, Search (Sydney, NSW), 26:3, pp. 89–94, https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/IELAPA.950808147. Accessed 1 August 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Howell, E. L. and Brossard, D. (2021), ‘(Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118:15, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Humm, C., Schrögel, P. and Leßmöllmann, A. (2020), ‘Feeling left out: Underserved audiences in science communication’, Media and Communication, 8:1, pp. 164–76, https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2480.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L. and Jamieson, K. H. (2017), ‘Science curiosity and political information processing’, Political Psychology, 38:S1, pp. 179–99, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12396.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Krouwel, M., Jolly, K. and Greenfield, S. (2019), ‘Comparing Skype (video calling) and in-person qualitative interview modes in a study of people with irritable bowel syndrome: An exploratory comparative analysis’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19:1, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0867-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Leach, J. (2017), ‘Science journalism is in Australia’s interest, but needs support to thrive’, The Conversation, 21 June, http://www.theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106. Accessed 19 July 2021.
  24. Lidberg, J. (2021), ‘Science communication: The “weight of evidence” approach and climate change’, in S. J. A. Ward (ed.), Handbook of Global Media Ethics, Cham: Springer, pp. 711–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Livingstone, S. (2008), ‘Engaging with media: A matter of literacy?’, Communication, Culture and Critique, 1:1, pp. 51–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2007.00006.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mack, K., Kruszelnicki, K., Randall, L., Wade, J., Al-Khalili, J. and Vedral, V. (2020), ‘Reaching out’, Nature Reviews Physics, 2:6, pp. 282–84, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0185-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, F. R. and Dwyer, T. (2012), ‘Addressing convergence: Operational, legal and ethical trends in online and cross-media news production’, CiteSeerX, 18 September, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=fb9153853b0a1d17e69405dd0e17eddaf2efcc43. Accessed 25 November 2022.
  28. McKinnon, M., Black, B., Bobillier, S., Hood, K. and Parker, M. (2019), ‘Stakeholder relations in Australian science journalism’, Public Understanding of Science, 28:5, pp. 554–71, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519835745.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McKinnon, M., Howes, J., Leach, A. and Prokop, N. (2018), ‘Perils and positives of science journalism in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 27:5, pp. 562–77, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517701589.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Metcalfe, J. (2019), ‘Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data’, Public Understanding of Science, 28:4, pp. 382–400, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Metcalfe, J. and Gascoigne, T. (1995), ‘Science journalism in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 4:4, pp. 411–28, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/4/4/005.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. National Science Board, National Science Foundation (2020), ‘Science and technology: Public attitudes, knowledge, and interest’, Science and Engineering Indicators 2020, NSB-2020-7, Alexandria, VA, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/. Accessed 14 August 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Neuman, W. L. (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th ed., Essex: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Oreskes, N. (2019), Why Trust Science?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Philo, G. (2008), ‘Active audiences and the construction of public knowledge’, Journalism Studies, 9:4, pp. 535–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802114217.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosenbaum, L. (2015), ‘Communicating uncertainty: Ebola, public health, and the scientific process’, New England Journal of Medicine, 372:1, pp. 7–9, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1413816.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Schäfer, M. S. and Metag, J. (2021), ‘Audiences of science communication between pluralisation, fragmentation and polarisation’, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 3rd ed., New York: Routledge, pp. 291–304.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Takahashi, B. and Tandoc, E. C. (2016), ‘Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science’, Public Understanding of Science, 25:6, pp. 674–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J. and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2020), ‘The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117:14, pp. 7672–83, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Waisbord, S. (2023), ‘Intertwining science journalism with (post)development’, Journalism Studies, 25:5, pp. 575–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2201862.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ward, S. J. A. (2010), Global Journalism Ethics, Montreal: MQUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ward, S. J. A. (2015), Radical Media Ethics: A Global Approach, New York: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ward, S. J. A. (ed.) (2021), ‘What is global media ethics?’, Handbook of Global Media Ethics, Cham: Springer, pp. 5–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. WCSJ2019 Lausanne (2019), ‘P3: Should science journalists focus on solutions?’, YouTube, 26 August, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04tP9wuU2K8. Accessed 21 April 2020.
  45. World Economic Forum (2024), ‘Global Risks Report 2024’, 10 January, https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/. Accessed 20 January 2024.
  46. Yang, Y. and Hobbs, J. E. (2020), ‘The power of stories: Narratives and information framing effects in science communication’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102:4, pp. 1271–96, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12078.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ajr_00165_1
Loading
When the public does not trust science: What can journalists do about it?
Australian Journalism Review 46, 249 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1386/ajr_00165_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ajr_00165_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ajr_00165_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): audience engagement; COVID-19; interest; journalism; misinformation; science communication; science literacy; uncertainty

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test