Month: November 2024

Dr. Panagiotis Kavouras of the POIESIS NTUA team has presented online, aspects of the projects’ early findings at the 24th FERCAP International Conference 2024 “Maximizing Benefits through Responsible Conduct of Research”, which was held in Nepal.

The “Promoting Trust in Science” session where the presentation was made, included several other very interesting and impactful projects, like our sister project VERITY , ROSiE project, HYBRIDA, BEYOND, as well as initiatives related to Citizen Science, and insights from the European Network of Research Ethics Committees: EUREC.

The POIESIS NTUA Team conducted 16 interviews with 11 science communicators and 5 Researchers on COVID-19 and Climate Change over the course of the summer. Those were part of the total of 119 Expert Interviews that were conducted in the 7 European countries that participate in the project and explored how scientific information is transferred from the laboratory to the general public through ‘chains of mediation’.

Both mediators and researchers called for more action by Institutions, or even the creation of new ones to oversee the way science is communicated. Even though some of the interviewees advocated for the Reformation of some Institutions such as the Greek educational system, the trust in Institutions shown by them to enhance both science communication and science integration differs from results of previous POIESIS engagement events in Greece. More notably, the Public Deliberative Workshops produced at best mixed results regarding people’s trust in Institutions. This might probably relate to the fact that in this previous study the participants were lay people, while in the present study the participants were researchers and communicators.

Greek interviewees are also sensitised to Research Integrity-related issues, despite the fact that some of them often seem to lack the knowledge that they fall under the umbrella term of Research Integrity. That was exceptionally profound among others, on how they evaluate their sources of information and their own work.

Another result that was somehow unexpected is the awareness and acceptance by most of the interviewees of social integration. This specific aspect was a bit controversial at the Focus Group study of POIESIS, in the sense that social integration in the form of citizen science received both positive and negative response. In this study the responses were more homogeneous and more towards the positive side.

Other recommendations included: a) a wider dialogue between science and society regarding the conduct of research and the use of its outputs. Some mentioned basically informative and science integration events, others expressed the opinion that the public must have a say on the way the science outputs are used, b) more transparency in conducting research. This is meant to be used both on communicating and on conducting science as well, c) the creation of participatory and informative events.

You can read the Expert Interviews Findings and the Greek National Report by downloading “D2.3: Expert Interviews Findings” here.

The POIESIS expert interview study included 119 scientific communicators and researchers from the seven countries participating in the project. This study explored how scientific information is transferred from the laboratory to the general public through ‘chains of mediation’. It investigated the role of scientific integrity and citizen integration in research in fostering public trust in science. The study gathered recommendations from experts about how to strengthen public trust.

The Spanish POIESIS INGENIO team (CSIC-UPV) interviewed a total of 17 experts, 11 mediators and six researchers. Three participants were institutional mediators, science communication professionals working in research performing organizations. The other eight were non-institutional mediators, such as science journalists, writers and bloggers. These experts either professionally (4) or as amateurs (4) transmit scientific information to citizens. The six researchers interviewed were divided between two case studies, climate change and Covid-19.

Interviews with non-institutional mediators such as journalists highlighted that they directly use scientific literature published in academic journals in preparing their own outputs. They also use a variety of strategies to verify the quality of scientific information they use, including consulting experts in topics such as ethics, or relying on their interpersonal contacts with trusted scientists or colleagues. Mediators employed by research organisations to publicise the work of scientists have other mediators such as journalists as the target of their work, rather than the general public. These different positions in chains of mediation can be seen to shape the work and creative process of individual mediators.

Interviews with researchers reflected distinctly different patterns regarding the communication of climate change science and COVID-19. Climate change communication has a decades-long history and the researchers involved are aware of the dynamics and controversies that have affected communication in this field. The experiences reported by Covid-19 researchers were very much marked by the emergency situation and the need to communicate information immediately, continuously and intensively.

In general, researchers considered that citizens have a positive perception of science and view scientists as trustworthy. The vast majority of researchers also reported having a positive perception of the communication carried out by third parties and especially by professional science journalists. Regarding practices to involve and integrate citizens in research and science, researchers also shared a positive view of citizen participation. Nevertheless, some researcher also voiced reservations or perceived limits to citizen roles in particular situations or contexts. Several researchers advocated a greater investment and effort be made to open research up to citizens, arguing strongly that involving the public in the design and development phases of research that is relevant to their lives and communities was the next step that needs to be taken to strengthen science – society relations.

For a comprehensive overview of the research findings and recommendations, please see the Spanish and global report at https://poiesis-project.eu/deliverables/.

The POIESIS Expert Interview study was recently conducted with 119 mediators and researchers in the 7 partner countries. In this context, the German POIESIS team at Wissenschaft im Dialog spoke to 16 experts in total – 6 researchers working on climate change or Covid-19; 2 institutional mediators and 8 non-institutional mediators – addressing the topics of trust in science, social integration, research integrity, and very importantly, the role of mediators within the 3i4t model.

Although not having been asked the same questions, mediators and researchers shared some important views on the topics discussed. First of all, both, mediators and researchers, generally perceive public trust in science to be high in Germany, though they also note rising instances of societal mistrust. This mistrust is fuelled by vocal anti-science and anti-institutional voices, which, although in the minority, leverage social media effectively to amplify their reach. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a significant shift, drawing science into public debate but also increasing scepticism as scientific uncertainty intersected with political decision-making.

A major concern among a majority of experts interviewed in this study is the politicisation of science, where scientific findings are used to advance specific political agendas. Researchers and mediators argue that the public struggles to differentiate between scientific data and the political decisions based on that data. They feel that politicians bear responsibility for clarifying this distinction.

The audience(s) of science communication were another key theme that emerged from the interviews.  A clear majority of interviewees, once again mediators but also researchers, asked themselves for whom they are actually doing their communication activities. They agreed that it is totally valid, and also necessary, to address those who are already interested in science. Nevertheless, many of them also stressed that they would like to reach new audiences, those who are not interested and even more those with increasing mistrust in science. The question of whom science communication activities are actually for is clearly a central one for all kinds of actors involved in the mediating process.

For a more detailed overview of the findings of this study and recommendations researchers and mediators made to strengthen public trust in science, please see the German and global report at https://poiesis-project.eu/deliverables/.