Author: Leonidas Ananiadis

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!

This summer, our POIESIS engagement activities have made significant process! We have had the privilege of interviewing 119 (at least 16 in each consortium country) institutional and non-institutional science communication actors as well as researchers on COVID-19 and climate change. The purpose was to gain a deeper understanding of the following questions:

• which processes and activities connecting (ir)responsible research practices and levels of public trust in science are identified by experts,
• how does information about (ir)responsible research practices reach the wider publics, which actors play a role in this, and how does it affect the public’s trust in science, and
• what kinds of manifestations of integrity and integration in the research cycle are likely to affect levels of public trust in science, and how.  

Results showed that most researchers and communication experts consider that research ethics and integrity issues in the conduct of science do not have a significant impact on public trust, while the further integration of citizens in science is indeed important to maintain and reinforce it.

The importance of institutions was also highlighted, but the general levels of trust in authorities and public institutions vary between countries and this can certainly affect public trust in science. A culture of public trust can be created by increasing participative structures, mechanisms, and opportunities, but social integration can only complement and enhance a sound, well resourced, societal-level institutional communication strategy, which is needed.

Science communication was “put to the test” during the COVID-19 pandemic and placed Mediators and Researchers under pressure to communicate amidst a chaotic churn of ‘fake news’, deliberate and malicious misinformation, and ill-informed speculation. Researchers are willing to engage in communication and dissemination efforts, but they consider a more systematic and well-resourced approach to communication at the organizational level to be essential for those efforts to have an impact.

To read all the insights and recommendations gained from these interviews, download the D2.3: Expert Interviews – Findings report here

Learn about the POIESIS latest news in small pieces!

A brief overview of our 2nd Expert Workshop, the Focus Groups main findings, our presence at the World Conference of Research Integrity in Athens and many more are just one click away!

POIESIS 1st Newsletter provided a brief mapping of the project. Download it here.

POIESIS 2nd Newsletter provided among others an exciting trip to the projects’ Open Deliberative Workshops and their main findings. Download it here.

How can we enhance trust and build best practices to safeguard the quality and integrity of online content, which is paramount in the age of AI-driven disinformation?

Under the auspices of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, this question was discussed at the OPERAS organized event “Trust On 2024. Tackling Disinformation” (for more information, please visit https://operas-eu.org/news-and-events/calendar-2/truston-2024/ ) that took place on June 26 -27 at the Royal Library of Belgium (KBR) in Brussels.

The aim of the workshop was to develop actionable strategies and practical recommendations for the UN Summit of the Future in September 2024. The workshop was organized in three parallel tracks, ‘Infrastructure Trust’, ‘Mediation Trust’ and ‘Science Trust’ to discuss and assess ‘various trust dimensions of the Internet, encompassing infrastructure, governance & regulation, mediation and science, through partnerships with civil society, academia, the tech community, youth, policymakers, among others’.

POIESIS, together with partner projects VERITY, IANUS, and COALESCE, chaired the Science track, which was led by Tine Ravn, Agata Gurzawska, and Charlotte Bruns. Based on numerous expert presentations and through a co-creation and dialogue-based format, we discussed the following questions:

• How to engage with different audiences about science and technology in times of crisis?

• How can co-creation and participatory initiatives be designed and implemented to empower citizens and mediating actors navigate online (mis)information?
• How can Stewards of Trust collaborate to enhance engagement against (digital) dis- and misinformation in the context of science?

The discussions resulted in a first set of key themes and overall recommendations.

POIESIS had an exceptional impactful presence at the World Conference of Research Integrity that was held in Athens (2-5 June).

Dr. Tine Ravn presented POIESIS early findings along with our sister projects IANUS (Dr. Hub Zwart) and VERITY (Dr. Agata Gurzawska) in the “Implications of research integrity for public trust in academic research” session that was fully devoted to those three projects research outputs. The session was chaired by POIESIS former coordinator Dr. Serge Horbach. The presentations steered much interest and thorough discussion and questions from the audience that could go on for much longer than the total of 90 minutes of the session!

Our poster presentation which included POIESIS main objectives, findings from our Public Workshops and Focus Groups, and our many scheduled engagement events, also attracted much interest and Dr. Tine Ravn was ever-present talking to many Conference attendees about POIESIS efforts to tackle societal mistrust in Science. POIESIS consortium members Dr. Panagiotis Kavouras (member of the WCRI Organising Committee) and Leonidas Ananiadis (NTUA) were also in Athens for the World Conference.

 

The POIESIS Focus Groups, a major survey that took place in the 7 Consortium countries (Denmark, UK, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Greece) with the participation of dozens of research and science communication experts has been completed. The discussions were extremely interesting in each of the 21 Focus Groups held, with the influence of the wider social context of each country evident in most of them and led to some very interesting findings.

Most of the participants suggested that there is no general crisis in trust in science; however, increasing, and complex challenges related to trust between science and society were identified. Questionable or detrimental research practices, irresponsible science communication, “disruptors”, and the influence of private and political interests are some of the main factors contributing to these challenges.  

Additionally, while participants were relatively divided on the effects of public engagement in science, they agreed that fostering a culture of participation requires a mobilisation of all actors in the ‘chain of mediation’: non-institutional actors in science communication are already involved, but other actors, especially institutional ones, should play a more active role in supporting the development of participatory projects by the scientific community.

Finally, regarding the role of institutions in promoting social integrity and social integration, the idea that each scientific organization should be able to systematically identify the conflicting moral imperatives to which it subjects its staff seems to be an essential task. But it is important to stress that these institutional actions will remain ineffective if they are not coordinated at both national and European levels.

You can read more about our Focus Groups by reading the Focus Group Findings: Exploring Institutional Roles in Fostering Public Trust in Science (D3.2) document here.