Science Journalism :: A Mix Between Education and Stand-up Comedy

CHALLENGES IN COMMUNICATING SCIENCE TO CANADIANS ::
How Print Reporters and Editors Construct their Science Stories

A Mix between Education and Stand-up Comedy:
Conversations with Science Journalists on their Role in Society

By David Secko

Science journalists are no strangers to discussions of value. Many wrestle with editors to get science stories printed or broadcast. They energetically engage in conversations over the value of science to our understanding of the world, and thereby signal a belief in the value of science journalism.

But when moving from the value of science and journalism to the role of the science journalist in creating this value, conversations are less frequent. The “role” of the science journalist—their function or purpose—is much less contemplated (albeit connected to discussions of “value” conceived more widely than economics).

What role do we expect science journalists to play in our democratic society? And what role do they see themselves playing?

Are they (and importantly should they be) informers, educators, jargon translators, storytellers, watchdogs, a combination of each of these, or perhaps something no one has argued for yet? The lines between these roles may not always be crisp, but as choices they bring different expectations as to what standards science journalists should be judged against. Investigating this question therefore enriches our discussion of science journalism in a time when modern science is rapidly growing in complexity and increasingly crossing boundaries into politics, ethics and law.

Motivated by an interest in these questions, we undertook an initiative to ask science journalists about their views on the role of science journalists in Canadian society. This forms one small part of the work described on this website.

It total, the research team spoke with 25 science journalists from across Canada. They were asked a variety of questions about their backgrounds, the types of stories they produce, the sources of their information, and the challenges they face (among others). Specifically, a question about their role in society was worded as such: “What is your role as a science writer and/or editor in the communication of science to the general public?”Here, I briefly approach the analysis of these interviews as related to this question. This is done largely on a descriptive level – a teaser if you will. Deeper qualitative analysis of the interviews will subsequently be presented in academic articles, for those interested.

The question on roles came near the end of the interviews after a discussion of the challenges facing science journalists. The answers were not always ones that are easily interpretable, but our analysis identified several themes present in the conversations, including:

The first point was a limited theme. Four of the 25 science journalists did not answer the question, while several others struggled to answer. One male journalist with decades of experience said, in part, this: “I don’t know. I don’t want to sound too lofty here, but the bottom line for me is that I find science fascinating.” While another female reporter put this forward: “I don’t know...I think it’s the same as any journalist. If there’s an issue we need to explain it.” While the reasons for this theme require more prodding, its presence may relate to science journalists not often being asked to describe their perceived role, ideal or otherwise, in society.

The theme of seeing science journalists as informers was common. One experienced female reporter simply said: “I can do no more than to honestly inform the public.” Others linked this informational role to what they felt was an important exposure of people to scientific discoveries so that they knew what was occurring in hospitals and universities. As a long-time female reporter added:

“A lot of people get their health information from journalists. Lifestyle-wise, we can provide people with a lot of information on how to be healthy. I play an important role in, first of all, letting people know what’s going on in their hospitals and in the university…to make sure these places are accountable for the large amounts of public money that they control.”

It was clear that these science journalists wanted to remind people, as one male journalist put it, “about the world’s mysteries and the world’s beauty”. But for the informers this was seen as a passive undertaking where it was up to readers to assert a level of accountability.

As might be expected for a profession that deals with complex topics, the informer role was closely linked to an explanatory function that draws on the skills to translate scientific information into everyday language. The perspective of this theme was succinctly explained by a young female journalist:

“[It’s] definitely helping translate it for them. Sometimes scientists can be, they use a whole different language, so it’s about trying to take what’s most exciting and important and trying to explain it to them.”

For some responses, this explanatory theme echoed of the notion of the science journalist as the ‘third person’ between scientists and the public, where translation was all that was needed for scientific information to be effectively communicated.

Contrasted here with these first three themes, were the science journalists who saw their role as an educator. One science journalist saw his roles as “a mix between education and stand-up comedy.” This wasn’t meant to put down science journalism, but instead to note the need for dry scientific information to be developed into the interesting scientific findings they represent. Another journalist said:

“I think we’ve got a role in educating the public as to what the science really is, so people can make informed decisions, so we as a country can go in the right direction...”

The distinction between information-based roles and educational roles was one of activity level, and just how much of an active role journalists should play in the social dynamics that surround scientific discoveries and there subsequent interaction with society. This distinction can be further seen in the strong denials of this role by some journalists we spoke with:

“I don’t see myself as an educator, I see myself as a journalist who tells interesting stories. If they [the audience] learn along the way that’s great, but that’s not what I set out to do. I want to inform but not necessarily to educate...”

This may seem like a small distinction. But if we return to the notion of how function translates into value, one could argue that the choice of informer, explainer, or educator has implications over whether we hold science journalists (for example) to a standard that incorporates the support of active and meaningful engagement with science by citizens (as some social change models of education imply). The distinction therefore begs the question of exactly what is meant by education. Is this a return to elitist notions of educating the unwashed masses through the media? Or alternatively to create what Martha C. Nussbaum would call a Socratic capacity to effectively reason about our beliefs? Or it is something else entirely?

Such conversations start our journeys to a place where we can contemplate these questions, and work to expand, defend or refute them. Twenty-five conversations is only a beginning—a spark to consider what we expect from science journalists.