I became a science communicator (writer) first and a science communication researcher later. Since I started research, I have increasingly realized “why” something might not work in science communication and “how” it can be made potentially to work better. Let us take the example of the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier, I wondered why so many people worldwide did not follow precautions even when hundreds and thousands of science communicators and scientists were doing their jobs, trying to spread the information through different mediums as far and wide as possible. After reading several research papers, I realized that perhaps one of the issues is the universal nature of the message. Perhaps the same information would have been more effective if it was tweaked to synchronize with the different cultural contexts and the persons located within.  Studies suggested, particularly within psychology that what needs to be taken into account is the relatively stable pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that influence our drives, interests, and decisions of people. I realized that we had almost negligible research involving Indian participants, which gave rise to many questions—would I get the same personality traits, or would they differ according to different cultures of countries? How would that help in effective science communication?

Research focuses on better understanding foundational concepts and theoretical frameworks that may better aid in adapting practices to local contexts and understanding the nuances of effective science communication in society². For me, science communication research has revealed that its practice is multidimensional, having layers of social, political, and cultural contexts and complexities³. Practice drives research, which can feed into practice to make it better! They are different yet connected at the same time.

Balancing Objectivity and Emotionality

Objectivity is idealized in science. Often underestimated, emotions can heavily influence objectivity in science and research⁴, some topics more than others, such as vaccines and genetically modified organisms. For example, talking to people while trying to develop my research studies made me realize the importance of the connections among language, meaning, and emotions in communicating science. Multiple layers of interactions are at work, consisting of these three aspects and associated inequalities, adding to the intricacy. Emotions, not only of the scientists and science communicators but also of the participants and the broader audience!

While trying to design a study involving different science communication methods, I translated a statement into Hindi, thinking I could reach a broader audience. However, a person from a village with Hindi as their native language informed me that although this is important information, many from his village would not want to hear it because some words from that statement were considered weird and embarrassing. Although I tried to make the information more accessible, it almost had the opposite effect. This experience helped me understand that sometimes a second language aids people in navigating negative emotions and gets the point across⁵.

Listening is Important

Listening needs to be noticed in science communication research and practice. The reasons why it is overlooked range from strict plans to time constraints. Ethnography, a branch of anthropology, involves studying people in their environment through participant observation by a researcher, which lies on a continuum from being only an observer to entirely participant⁶. Listening plays a critical role here.

A researcher may ask someone, “What is the problem?” (objectivity). However, the person may respond by telling how the problem made them feel (emotions), which the researcher needs to understand. Such conversations may take the research in complex and unfamiliar directions, which often helps refine it further.  Suppose researcher A is investigating access to healthcare facilities in a low-income neighbourhood. Anticipating direct responses, for example, related to a lack of resources, the researcher asks a person living in that area, “What are some problems associated with healthcare here?” Instead, the person says, “I often face discrimination at the hospital because of my financial situation. It makes me anxious.” In this case, effective listening on researcher A’s part may result in exploring interactions among socioeconomic status, healthcare facilities, and psychological health issues and understanding how societal problems like stigma can impact access to healthcare in an area.   

Listening is not limited to thinking of or asking questions. It also involves paying close attention to the responses and the body language. Further, asking the wrong questions may significantly limit our options and close several doors of opportunity. In contrast, the right ones pave the way for ethical, responsible, and enlightening science communication research and practice.

AI Chatbots—Handle with Care!

In the present times, artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT have greatly impacted research, from identifying gaps based on literature reviews to summarizing findings⁷. However, such tools often fail to employ critical thinking to identify and shut out inaccurate information⁸. Further, ChatGPT can present fabricated information convincingly, also called hallucinations⁹. Researchers have reported this tool’s repeated creation of false references and its falsely reported content of genuine publications, termed falsifications and fabrications¹⁰. Although the world is encouraging such tools for designing effective science communication content quickly, taking their help in science communication research and practice demands our careful contemplation.

Science communication not only encompasses raising awareness of the people but also aims to increase their interest in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics, which has now expanded to include humanities and social sciences. This field broadly involves expert-to-expert communication and expert-to-general public communication. It became a consistent field of research in the last decade, based on collaboration among disciplines, researchers, and the public. A significant part of science communication research tries to identify possible reasons behind the failed transfer of information¹¹. Did the method need more clarity? Did the content trigger the wrong emotions? Did it not reach the audience at all? Did the researcher fail to listen? Exploring these questions provides opportunities to learn, improve, and spread awareness through effective science communication practice. In the end, science communication research and practice are different yet connected at the same time. 

References:

American Psychological Association. (n.d.) Personality. https://www.apa.org/topics/personality.

Kankaria, S., Fleerackers, A., Escalón, E., Stengler, E., Wilkinson, C., & Kreutzer, T. (2024). Teaching To Bridge Research and Practice: Perspectives from Science Communication Educators Across the World. Journal of Science Communication, 23(2): N03.

Metcalfe, J., (2022). Science Communication: A Messy Conundrum of Practice, Research, and Theory. Journal of Science Communication,21(7): C07.

Kearns, F. (2021). Getting to the Heart of Science Communication: A Guide to Effective Engagement. Island Press.

Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2008). Words, Feelings, and Bilingualism: Cross-Linguistic Differences in the Emotionality of Autobiographical Memories. The Mental Lexicon, 3(1): 72–90.

Glesne, C. (2005). Being There: Developing Understanding Through Participant Observation. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. Pp. 63–80. Pearson.

Schäfer, M. S. (2023). The Notorious GPT: Science Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Science Communication.22(02): 1–15.

Shipman, M. (2023). Why AI Writing Tools are Useless for Science News. Science Communication Breakdown. Online.

Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing. Cureus, 15(2): e35179.

Emsley, R. (2023). ChatGPT: These are not Hallucinations–they’re Fabrications and Falsifications. Schizophrenia. 9(1): 52.

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The Sciences of Science Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110(supplement_3): 14033–14039.

***

Apeksha Srivastava is pursuing her Ph.D. at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar, India. She is a visiting researcher at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA. Her research area lies at the intersection of Science Communication and Psychology.

***

Acknowledgement: Some views discussed in this article were briefly touched upon by the author during an interview/discussion on X spaces about her piece “Easy? Nah!” — Some Science Communication Perspectives from India in SciRio. The author would like to thank Neeldhara Misra, Associate Professor, Computer Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, for reviewing this article and providing her valuable input.