Science Communication in practice

Before starting, researchers should think about five topics. These interact with each other and influence each other. The National Institute for Science Communication has summarised them in the so-called NaWik arrow. 

The NaWik arrow in a nutshell: For successful communication, it is important to...

1. clearly outline the topic and adapt it to the target group and the occasion,
2. define the target group precisely and consider what interests, prior knowledge, expectations and attitudes it has,
3. define the communication objective for yourself, your own institution and your counterpart and determine whether it is about information, persuasion or entertainment,
4. select the medium or format to suit the objectives and target group,
5. adapt the style with which content is presented in line with the other four dimensions mentioned.

The 14 questions from the Checklist for scientists: communicating science to the public provide further assistance in checking whether the most important points have been considered when planning a science communication measure.

For many people, science has little presence in everyday life, which is why there are often (too) abstract ideas about its processes. For researchers and their work to be perceived as trustworthy by laypeople, three dimensions are fundamental: epistemic competence, moral reliability and commitment to the public interest (Goldenberg 2023, p. 370).

[T]he public will trust advice and information from scientific experts if the individual, group, or the institutions the scientists represent are perceived as (i) epistemically competent, i.e. they are in a position to know, (ii) morally reliable, i.e. they are disposed to tell the truth, and (iii) they work in the public interest.

Various communication strategies can therefore be used to strengthen informed trust in science in a targeted manner (Intemann 2023):

• Open and target group-orientated communication
• Demonstrate relevance for the target group
• Target group-specific messages that address the respective interests and needs
• Clearly present epistemic reliability and expertise
• Consider diversity of values and public interests in findings and recommendations
• Communicate scientific processes and associated limitations, uncertainties, contradictions and potential changes
• Present benefits and risks in a balanced way

Transparency with regard to data, work processes, funding and opinions plays a particularly important role here (keyword: open science). Citizen science in particular is also a good way of making research processes more accessible and strengthening scientific literacy among the population through the active involvement of laypeople.

It is also important to reduce the negative effects, for example by actively responding to and correcting sceptical scientific statements, misinformation and disinformation. Important strategies include educating people about disinformation techniques (inoculation) and addressing common misinterpretations (prebunking) (Peters, Peter & Biermann 2023).

Literature

• Goldenberg, M. (2023). Public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48:2, 366-378, DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243
• Intemann, K. (2023). Science communication and public trust in science, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48:2, 350-365, DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152244
• Peters, N., Peter, E. & Biermann, K. (2023). Can science communication contribute to reducing science scepticism and science denial in Germany? Berlin. Available at: How can science communication respond to science scepticism and science denial? - Transfer Unit | Science Communication

On the following pages, interested parties will find further information on the following topics:

• Target Groups
• Formats
• Evaluations
• Dealing with Hostility