Introduction
Science is an essential tool that has helped humans understand the natural world. Over the last few centuries, different scientists across the globe have worked tirelessly to provide vast information on the natural world. They have developed remedial solutions to problems afflicting society: scientists and the public need to communicate more than ever in the contemporary world. Sharing with scientists will help increase scientific literacy (Goldstein et al., 985). Generally, most scientific discoveries are intricate and complex for the public to understand. This calls for intact communication with the scientists, which will build the basis of understanding scientific discoveries and aid the public in making an informed decision on matters afflicting society, such as environmental regulations and health policies (Goldstein et al., 985). In addition, communication between scientists and the public will help to build trust. Effective communication will enable the public to fathom the process and metrics integrated by the scientist in arriving at a particular conclusion. This communication will allow the scientist to account for their findings, thereby giving the general know-how on how the scientific findings are arrived at, thus bridging trust between the two parties. Communication with scientists is crucial in linking the gap between the public and the scientist to promote scientific advancement.
There are many reliable platforms for science communication. Notably, each platform has its strengths and weaknesses. Some of the platforms for science communication are government-owned, while some are personal. Due to the increase in scams and cybercrimes in the science fields, some science communication platforms have been defiled with unreliable misinformation that has caused a tremendous public distrust in matters about science. However, many platforms for science communication have played a significant role in displaying scientific information to the public. These sources have helped answer difficult questions asked by the public about science. Traditional media is one of the platforms for science communication.
Media is an effective platform for science communication as it can cover a wide geographic area, reaching information to a larger population (de Vries 2). The traditional media includes radio, television, magazines, and newspaper. Due to the notable upsurge in technology, media has gained a large population of users where people integrated into social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. In this breath, scientists have taken social media platforms to communicate scientific information and give compelling answers to questions arising from the public on science.
Therefore, this paper aspires to discuss the scope of communication with scientists by exploring science communication’s aims, misinformation’s impacts, the importance of quality, credibility, and expertise in science communication, and the role of emotional engagement.
Aims of Science Communication
Science communication refers to the process by which the public and scientists share scientific information. Science communication is one of the integral aspects of scientific realms as it allows scientist to share their research and substantiate their findings to the public. As latterly perceived, scientific works and discoveries are complex (Kappel 322). Therefore, science communication’s primary essence is bringing scientific inventions and findings into the limelight for public understanding. Generally, the ultimate aim of science communication is to promote mutual engagement of the public with the scientist and to answer questions on science by linking up the gap between the public and the scientists.
Another objective of science communication is to build trust. By communicating scientific inventions and findings accountable and transparently, the public will now develop a sense of trust in science. Often, a lack of trust is caused by a lack of understanding. Science communication aims to arrest doubts held by the public regarding scientific findings.
Scientific research and findings are sensible as they are reliable public sources of information. As the scientific field grows, various movements and non-government bodies have been established to determine the effectiveness of science communication in various contexts, including education, journals, and public outreach. Overall, the empirical evidence proposes that science communication can provide public engagement and understanding of science. Communicating scientific information responsibly is one of the ways to improve public attitudes and knowledge of science. For instance, a study incorporated in a public journal of communication can lead to an upsurge in knowledge about science. In addition, it can help the public to build a positive attitude toward science.
Using narratives is another applicable technique that can improve scientific communication. Research holds that people are more likely to recall and engage with information presented in a narrative (Fischhoff et al., 7632). For example, a study published in the Journal of Science Communication initiated that using personal anecdotes in a science news story reaped a greater interest and engagement among readers (Fischhoff et al., 7632).
Effective science communication requires attention to audience preferences, claves, and characteristics. Research has proved that diverse demographic groups may respond to science posts differently. The primary reason for the variance in responding to science messages is explained by the lying differences, in terms of preferences and characteristics, between various groups. For effective science communication, the communicator must establish a relevant message that will align with the audience’s characteristics and favorites.
The Impacts of Misinformation
When the public has the wrong beliefs, they are bound to reject the new ideas being communicated to them by scientists. They tend to believe they are right and that no other information is true. This is due to the fear of embracing the unknown and the pride of not wanting to acknowledge that they are wrong. When some members of the public are misinformed, they will teach other members the wrong ideas and information, and thus most of the public members will believe in the wrong information (Bucchi 89). Since embracing new information that contradicts the information at hand is not inflexible, most people end up declining the new and correct information being communicated to them by the scientist.
One common way to deal with this issue is to show the public some practical uses of the new ideas and how they are better than the misinformation they believe. Consequently, scientists can use better communication methods, such as media devices (Goldstein et al. 985). They will believe it when the public receives information from trusted sources such as television or local radio stations.
Quality, Credibility, and Expertise
The quality of communication between the scientists and the public is a major defining factor in whether the public will comprehend and acquire the scientific knowledge that is being imparted to them by the scientists (Bucchi 101). When the communication is conveyed clearly, the public will acquire and embrace the information more quickly. Additionally, when information is conveyed as trustworthy, the public is more likely to accept that it is accurate. This means that scientists should only convey credible information to the public to adopt the scientific principles they obtain. In addition, the scientists in touch with the public should also be experts in their field. The expertise of the scientists helps them grasp the concepts before relaying them to the public. When scientists understand the concepts well, they will not communicate the wrong public information.
Role of Emotional Engagement
When emotions are mixed with information, people tend to absorb the information with much more conviction. Thus, when scientists want to share information with the public, they should consider adding emotions to their presentation (Fischhoff 7633). More importantly, the presentation should also engage the recipients of the message. When scientists add emotions and engage the public when teaching them scientific concepts, then the public will acquire the concepts swiftly. Some ways to add emotional engagement when delivering to the public include storytelling, visual aids, and interactive activities.
The outcome of emotional engagement is that the public will receive the information and understand it rapidly compared to when there is no emotional engagement in the message. Emotional engagement will give the public a positive attitude to acquiring knowledge since they will feel it relates to them. Also, engaging the public in their daily activities will help them obtain new behaviors that they will see benefit them. In addition, the perception of the new ideas will improve with the emotional engagement the scientists will include in their presentation.
Conclusion
In summary, effective communication is essential for the scientific enhancement of the community. The main aim of scientific communication is for scientists to be able to communicate freely with the public while teaching them the main scientific ideas and sound scientific practices. The quality, credibility, and expertise of scientific communication are important for the public assimilation of these scientific practices. When the scientists add emotional engagement, the public will easily grasp the concepts.
However, there are challenges to effective science communication. Some of the challenges include the impacts of misinformation, where members of the public believe in the wrong information and are unwilling to change and acquire new and practical scientific concepts. However, these challenges can be dealt with if the concerned parties utilize the right channels for dealing with the challenges. For example, using different platforms for science communication can help deal with such challenges.
Cited References
Bucchi, Massimiano. “Facing the Challenges of Science Communication 2.0: Quality, redibility
and Expertise.” EFSA Journal, vol. 17, July 2019,
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170702. Accessed 5 Mar. 2023.
de Vries, M. J., A. M. Land-Zandstra, and Ionica Smeets. “Citizen scientists’ preferences for communication of scientific output: a literature review.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4.1 (2019): 2.
Fischhoff, Baruch, and Dietram A. Scheufele. “The science of science communication III.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116.16 (2019): 7632-7633.
Goldstein, Carly M., et al. “Science Communication in the Age of Misinformation.” Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, vol. 54, no. 12, Dec. 2020, pp. 985–90,
https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa088. Accessed 5 Mar. 2023.
Kappel, Klemens, and Sebastian Jon Holmen. “Why Science Communication, and Does It
Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical
Evidence.” Frontiers in Communication, vol. 4, Oct. 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055. Accessed 5 Mar. 2023.
write