Author: Leonidas Ananiadis

A large survey was conducted over the Autumn involving 2847 respondents, a minimum of 400 in each of the projects’ Consortium countries (Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France and Greece).

The aim of the study was to experimentally investigate the effects of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration on public trust in science. To do so, we fielded a conjoint survey experiment in which levels of commitment to integrity and integration were randomly assigned to fictional university profiles. These were then evaluated by the survey respondents, who were asked how trustworthy they found the fictional universities.  

The key conclusions of the study are that:

• Consistent with the assumptions outlined in the POIESIS model, institutional commitment towards both research integrity and societal integration produces higher trustworthiness ratings.
• However, participants are not particularly sensitive to the level of commitment but rather whether commitment is present at all. That is, participants rate institutional commitment to national recommendations as highly as commitment to strict procedures, but both of these higher than lack of commitment.
• While all included forms of research integrity and societal integration positively affect trustworthiness ratings in all included countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and UK), patterns of magnitude vary. This indicates that while integrity and integration matter cross-contextually the specificities of their influence are sensitive to local and cultural factors.
• The effect of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration is generally not diminished by cues on the reputation of organizations, neither regarding their prestige nor achievements in specific fields of research. This implies that effects of commitment towards integrity and integration is not merely used as a proxy for institutional reputation but plays an independent role in shaping trust.
• The effects of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration are only sensitive to sociodemographic and attitudinal differences to a minor degree. However, one notable exception is prior trust in science which is highly related to the effectiveness of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration. Specifically, the effect of institutional commitment is confined to participants who indicate to trust science prior to the experiment (above 5 on a 0-10 scale), whereas respondents who have low levels of prior trust in science (5 or below) exhibit no differences in trustworthiness ratings across levels of institutional commitment.

To read the full results of the Survey Experiment download the Deliverable D2.4 here

On December 11, our sister project VERITY in collaboration with POIESIS and IANUS, hosted an inspiring and thought-provoking meeting on “The Role of Trust in Science for Effective Policy and Societal Progress.”

A special highlight of the event was the active participation of the European Commission, represented by Dr. Georgios Papanagnou and Fara Lledó San Mauro. Their presence and valuable contributions provided us with the latest updates and guidance on maximizing the impact of our projects, underscoring the significance of building trust in science for societal progress.

There were many insightful presentations and contributions from:

• European Commission representatives, Dr. Georgios Papanagnou and Fara Lledó San Mauro;
   
• VERITY Project, presented by Dr. Agata Gurzawska from Trilateral Research IE;
   
• The PREPARED Project, presented by Kalle Videnoja, an expert in international affairs at the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity;
   
• The University of West Attica (UniWa), with a presentation by Panagiotis Monachelis;
   
• IANUS, represented by Hub Zwart (Erasmus University of Rotterdam);
   
• POIESIS, represented by Leonidas Ananiadis (National Technical University of Athens) 

Lisa Haberlein from EUREC, who not only presented on the joint policy paper but also extended an invitation to the broader Trust in Science Cluster to contribute to this initiative, helping us develop feasible recommendations for enhancing societal trust in science

The meeting was skillfully moderated by Mathieu Rochambeau from EUREC, fostering an open environment for dialogue.

Let’s keep the conversation alive!

The POIESIS 4^th General Assembly was held in Aarhus on November 28^th and 29^th. With POIESIS results from the projects’ plethora of engagement events beginning to pile up, we are delighted that we are getting closer towards POIESIS final recommendations for Tackling Societal Mistrust in Science and for Strengthening the co-creation of Research & Innovation contents by society!!

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/.

In the POIESIS project on trust in science, we recently concluded an expert interview study with 119 science communicators and researchers across seven European countries. The study examined how knowledge dissemination between research and citizens occurs, focusing on the complex ‘chains of mediation’ involved, and gathered recommendations to foster public trust in science.

In the Danish part of the study, we interviewed ten institutional and non-institutional science mediators and six researchers specializing in climate change and COVID-19. Both groups emphasized the importance of highlighting the positive value of science in communication efforts and involving citizens and stakeholders in research.

Interviews with mediators suggest that while a traditional mediation model persists, it does not adequately capture the complexity, realities, and multiple translation processes within the Danish science communication landscape. Overall, mediators do not position themselves firmly within a prescriptive chain of mediation and view public trust in science as central to their role. Though not identifying a general crisis of trust, they cite concerns around disinformation and conflicting science narratives in media.

Researchers identified that public concerns arise when research is presented in conflicting ways or challenges personal beliefs, creating uncertainty around its credibility. Several researchers noted that ambiguity in research knowledge and in the role and objectivity of experts can both diminish and increase the polarization of public perceptions. While generally supportive of citizen involvement, some questioned whether it necessarily increases public trust in science. Generally, researchers emphasize the significant role that media and politicians play in science representation, consequently affecting public trust in science.

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

POIESIS was at the WissKomm Connected Conference, that was held on the 11^th and 12^th of September 2024 in Berlin. The conference, organised by the Transfer Unit (Wissenschaft im Dialog and the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities), brought together nearly 200 science communication researchers and practitioners to foster exchange and dialogue.

German POIESIS member Dr. Anne-Sophie Behm-Bahtat participated in the conference and held a presentation with the title “More participation – more trust?” presenting findings from the German Public Deliberative Workshop that took place in June 2023 in Berlin, complemented by elements from the international comparison, available online here on the website in Deliverable D2.2: Public Deliberative Workshops – Findings (https://poiesis-project.eu/deliverables/). The session, in which the presentation was held, brought together very different perspectives on the topic of public integration and a lively discussion took place with the other presenters and the audience.

The PT POIESIS team, led by Professor Marta Entradas and supported by Dr. Inês Sousa and Dr. Feng Yan, has just wrapped up an insightful interview study to investigate the views of experts on the science-society relationship and the role of scientific integrity and public integration in trust in science.

Six researchers in the fields of climate change and public health, and 11 mediators of the relationship between science and society were interviewed online. The interviews took place between April and June 2024, and lasted, on average, around 49 minutes.

The interviews delved into the crucial topic of building trust in science and here are the main discoveries:

From the opinions of the interviewees, the traditional media, through science journalists, play an important role in sharing cases of (lack of) scientific integrity, but the public shows little attention to this type of information – either because of their lack of scientific literacy or the high level of trust they place in scientists.

The mediators considered that science communication by researchers is a responsible research practice that can involve different activities (e.g. media interviews, opinion articles, podcasts, participation in educational programmes, etc.). Researchers considered communication to be an important part of their work, but not all of them see it as a priority, and some recognised the need for training in this area.

All the interviewees recognised the importance of social integration in science. However, the mediators and social scientists considered that public involvement should follow a true bottom-up approach, with involvement at all stages of the research process. The remaining researchers (natural sciences) considered that the public should be involved in only certain stages of the process. Stay tuned for more updates on this groundbreaking study!