1. Science and the Public
In New Information Environments
Dominique Brossard, Professor
Department of Life Sciences Communication
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, UW-Madison
UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC)
Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies
AAAS 2013, Boston MA, February 14, 2013

2. This Talk: An Overview
• The online environment for science news
• The science information consumer
• Online content and science
• To comment or not to comment?

3. Science Communication is Redefined
“it’s not possible to talk about
science blogging without talking
about scientists blogging, or more
broadly about scientists writing.”
Franci, M. (2011). Nature Chemistry 3, 183-184

4. …Direct Communication Endorsed
Particularly By Younger Scientists
 cohort shifts with more junior
scientists thinking that “[n]ew
findings of public interest should be
communicated to the public
immediately”
(Data based on: Corley et al. 2011)
4

5. … And (Science) Information Can Go Viral
 Political news through indirect channnels
 Penn Virality study
Berger & Milkman 2010
5

6. THE PROMISE OF THE
New Communication Environments …
NEW INATION COMEALTH
 provide essentially unlimited
information
 on a large number of issues,
 which can be obtained anywhere
and
 with relatively limited effort
 and opportunities for citizens to
connect with others through social
media and other 2.0-type tools to
make sense of this information
10

7. This Talk: An Overview
• The online environment for science news
• The science information consumer
• Online conversations about science
• To comment or not to comment?

8. A New Active Online Science Audience Online
National Science Board 2012
15

9. Aggregate Cohort Shifts Among Audiences For
Science Information
Su et al.. 2012
12

10. But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board
BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE
60 NOT ACROSS THE BOARD
(scale range partially displayed) male
55 female
Percentage
50
45
40
Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only
mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.)
(23% of pop.) mixed (34% of
pop.)
Su et al. 2012
13

11. BUT FOR NOW, THESE SHIFTS ARE
But For Now, These Shifts Are Not Across The Board
NOT ACROSS THE BOARD
65
Education low
(scale range partially displayed)
60 Education high
55
Percentage
50
45
40
35
Traditional media Television Newspaper Online / Online-Only
mixed (20% of pop.) (16% of pop.) Traditional media (7% of pop.)
(23% of pop.) mixed (34% of
pop.)
Su et al. 2012
14

12. This Talk: An Overview
• The online environment for science news
• The science information consumer
• Online content and science
• To comment or not to comment?

13. What Do These New Information Environments
Look Like for the Science Information Consumer?
 For nanotechnology, discrepancy between
 Searches:
 what people look for (tracked by
Nielsen online)
 Results:
 what search terms are suggested to
them (Google suggest data)
 what they find (content analysis of
top ranked search results in Google)
Ladwig et al. 2010
17

14. What This Means for Science-Informed Audiences
 Potential of “self-reinforcing informational spirals”
Page Google
ranks Suggestions
Traffic Searches
 Are opinions formed based on how Google presents
results rather than on what individuals are searching?
Li et al. 2011; Brossard & Scheufele 2013
18

15. Information is Contextualized
 Online newspaper articles or TV shows not
consumed in isolated fashion, but
contextualized
 reader comments and feedback
 Facebook posts/links with “Like” buttons
and comments from other users
 Tweets - RT
 …
 … how are these formats impacting consumers
views?
19

16. Online Conversations Are Not Neutral
Emotions
Uncertainty
Disagreement
Name calling

17. Tone of Comments In Blogs Change
Our Judgments About Online Science Stories
 Experiment involving a representative
sample of the American population (N=1,183)
 Subjects randomly assigned to 2 types of
comments following a balanced news story
about nanosilver:
 Rude blog comments
 Civil blog comments
Anderson et al. (in press)
20

18. Predicting Nanotechnology Risk Perception (benefits < risk)

19. In a nutshell …
People who read the uncivil comments (which use the same
screen names and content and just differ on the tone) end up
walking away from the story with a much more polarized
understanding of the actual risks connected with nano

22. In Sum …
 An evolving science communication environment, in
which the science information consumer constantly
encounters contextualized information in an online
world
 How do we deal with comments?
 Research in science communication needs to inform
online science communication practice
21

23. Thank you
<dbrossard@wisc.edu>
Twitter: @brossardd
lsc.wisc.edu
scimep.wisc.edu