Researchers’ communication with journalists, the public and users 

About the author: Harald Hornmoen is a Professor with the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University.

A standard view of “dissemination” 

In research institutions there is no shortage of well-meaning advice on “disseminating research”. A growing awareness of the financial importance of having a visible presence in the public domain is reflected in the increasingly repeated message of various strategic documents: It is important to “disseminate and communicate research results” (the Norwegian Universities and University Colleges Act, Section 1-3, c) and engage in “knowledge dissemination to the general public” (Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Chemical Engineering Strategy 2018-2025). In research articles, researchers themselves can argue for the importance of research dissemination, for example for “enlightening the wider public” and “civilising the public conversation” (Kierulf, 2017).  
 
The question is whether such words and rhetoric are really going to inspire researchers to become better at communicating with the wider public? Above all, the modes of speech reflect a traditionally dominant view of dissemination in the research community (see Hilgartner, 1990). Dissemination is often perceived as one-way process, with researchers and the public placed at opposite ends of the “dissemination path”. At the one end, researchers develop “real” or “pure” knowledge before disseminators, such as journalists or information officers (or researchers in the role of popularisers), convey simplified versions of the knowledge to a public or users. These are perceived as recipients of the information who can not only become more informed, but also more democratic as a result of researchers’ dissemination efforts. 

A more dynamic view 

Such a perspective makes far too sharp a distinction between the research and its popularisation. Researchers learn about research fields other than their own through popular representations in the media, and these shape their view of the content and activity in science. Thus, popularised knowledge is fed back into the research process. Simplification is also important in scientific work, both in communication with peers and with students and specialists in adjoining fields. Popularisation is therefore something that also takes place internally in the research community. 
 
At the same time, scientific knowledge can also be created externally. For example, the news media offer researchers a platform beyond the research community, where they can formulate their thoughts and practise scientific work, whether in op-eds, debate contributions or comments in news articles. Viewed in this way, communicating research becomes something more than merely the transmission of results to the public by those who stand apart from the public (researchers).  
 
The more dynamic perspective (also called “the continuum model”, see Cloître and Shinn, 1985) reflects how science develops in dialogue with the wider community of which it is a part. However, a good dialogue also requires the interlocutor to be regarded in a different light to that offered by the traditional dissemination perspective: a passive laity devoid of creativity in relation to research. Occasionally, the public domain can actually be the place where production of scientific knowledge is initiated and developed, and not just by the researchers themselves. Bucchi (2004) reminds us that non-experts can mobilise considerable efforts around specific issues and influence research. One such example was when, in the 1980s, AIDS patients acquired some remarkable technical knowledge that enabled them to influence experimental procedures for the AZT medication and speed up the authorisation of the drug.  

Need for rethinking 

Such aspects of the communication of research are hidden by the traditional dissemination perspective on popularisation. That this remains the dominant view in the research community is no doubt partly because it has proven useful as a political tool for scientific experts. It can be used to distinguish between real and popularised knowledge. The establishment of a notion of inadequate, “contaminated” knowledge enables scientific knowledge to be idealised as superior. This knowledge also appears to be exclusive to researchers. Politicians and the public can only acquire simplified representations of science. Thus, researchers’ authority when it comes to knowledge is protected from external criticism.  
 
However, the traditional dissemination perspective does not exactly create fertile ground for a much-needed public dialogue and public engagement around an influential social institution (Hornmoen, 2009). If researchers are to make a greater contribution to this, they need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the true nature of popularisation. A good start may therefore be to replace the term “dissemination” with “communication”. Communication is not just about spreading knowledge, but about exchanging knowledge. It has to do with being able to see oneself in a context outside the internal scientific community. Above all researchers should develop an ability to see things from other people’s perspectives. 

Seeing the public and users 

In good communication about research, the public is viewed as knowledgeable participants in the debate on and with science. A greater understanding of non-experts’ engagement and knowledge in different areas may help develop researchers’ own knowledge in the fields. Non-experts, for example, may have valuable specialised knowledge about local conditions. People who are directly affected by an environmental problem may have acquired a clear awareness of the problem’s symptoms through their own informal investigations. This allows them to identify issues – such as a pollution source – more quickly and provide a clearer description than the experts could have done alone. The conversation around science benefits when researchers see the public sphere more as a space to test whether their specialised approaches to problems are socially acceptable. Scientific specialists will likely face increasing pressure to take account of people’s “common sense” or “good sense” to ensure their work is realised and applied. 
 
Another example highlights how research communities have come to appreciate the value of “external” users’ digital skills in advancing scientific knowledge. Researchers at the University of Washington encouraged computer gamers to play an online game: Foldit. This enabled gamers to work together and compete to decipher the structure of a protein-splitting enzyme involved in the progression of AIDS. According to the researchers, the gamers managed in ten days to identify a structure they themselves had been trying to piece together for over a decade. By joining in this digital collaboration, the players made an important contribution to the work of designing new drugs against AIDS (Fleming 2011). 
 
Overall, digital development holds the potential to cultivate a more engaged and participatory public in science than has traditionally been seen. It has provided us with a diverse communication space that is not the sole preserve of researchers, research communicators, and journalists. Here, people who were once primarily viewed as the audience also help create and distribute news content in their role as users. The internet has subtly shifted the balance of power among research communicators, journalists and the public. It has given people greater control over information, including when, where, and how they stay updated on the news. Above all, the internet’s interactivity allows people to create, communicate and discuss news. While Reuters’ 2023 survey (Newman et al., 2023) of global trends in digital news usage shows a slight decline in active participation compared to a few years ago, a significant portion of respondents still report weekly engagement, whether actively – such as commenting on news – or reactively, such as by sharing news.  
 
Users’ digital engagement with research news can indeed pose challenges for journalists and other professional research communicators. Their coverage of research has traditionally focused on experts’ research and viewpoints, rather than the opinions of non-experts. By moving away from the mindset of “we write, you read,” some research journalists worry that opening comment sections exposes them to uninformed opinions on crucial scientific fields and issues. They may find it difficult to stimulate participation that adds meaningful value to research coverage. However, above all, research communicators should appreciate that people are engaging in discussions and showing interest in research topics. It’s about embracing the networked nature of information online, where knowledge is shared more as an evolving process – and news more as a service – than as an end product. 

Seeing oneself 

Researchers can also get involved in social media, not just on ResearchGate, but also on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, X and Bluesky, which may attract more eclectic audiences. There they can spend some time listening, staying informed and engaging in conversations, while also offering context or corrections based on their own research. For some researchers, media engagement can feel time-consuming (see Carlsen et al., 2014). However, social media can be a great way to share new publications and highlight their open accessibility. And if you are aiming for impact beyond just getting more citations or likes from colleagues, you can also add some popularising, enticing comments about the key takeaways from your findings. 
 
This way, researchers can also attract the attention of journalists. Digital journalism in editorial media largely shapes how researchers communicate about their work. Broad international studies (e.g. Peters, 2013) indicate that researchers see visibility in such media as important and feel it is their professional responsibility to respond to journalists’ requests – an attitude supported by universities and other scientific organisations, along with their communications teams. 
 
At the same time, the frameworks, routines and genres of the media and journalists influence which research gets covered and which stories make it into print or become segments on radio and TV. This means that researchers who align their work with journalistic news values, presentation styles and language are more likely to get featured. 
 
However, for research coverage in the media, there is also the challenge that the fast-paced nature of news reporting leaves journalists with little time to engage in complex research. As a result, they often rely on certain types of source material. They may favour information subsidies, such as ready-made content and simplified explanations, which are easy to turn into stories – such as “pre-packaged” news pieces prepared for them by scientific institutions or PR agencies. There is plenty of evidence that Norwegian media houses are increasingly using and repurposing this kind of research news in both digital and print publications. Today’s “independent” journalism about research, in terms of both reach and presentation, can be extensively shaped by the distribution of prefabricated news – what is often referred to as “churnalism” (see Robbins, 2011; Heyes et al., 2020). 
 
Another question here is whether some researchers have become too adept at fitting into the conventional journalistic expectation that they “be specific”. In other words, when they appear in the public eye, they are expected to focus on the clear conclusions of their research. Some have become so adaptable that it results in an ethically questionable practice. What they have learned to do is disseminate different versions of scientific uncertainty to different recipients. Depending on what they want to achieve, researchers can flexibly interpret and present research as having a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty. (Hilgartner, 1990) 
 
Assertions of uncertainty can be used rhetorically by researchers in different contexts. Internally, this will strengthen the credibility of researchers if they are transparent about all aspects of the research that entail uncertainties. In media representations, however, assertions of uncertainty can be accompanied by a time schedule for resolving the uncertainty. In this way, the uncertainty can be portrayed as something that will be removed within time frames that are unlikely to be considered valid in the research community. However, the rhetoric is modified because it is aimed at a different recipient, with whom the researcher aims to achieve a different effect. Such modifications of the message are often performed in the knowledge that potential sponsors of the research are important recipients of the information. Thus, the formula becomes: “Under certain conditions and given resources, we will solve the problem.” 
 
However, research is also dependent on public confidence. There is a risk of jeopardising this confidence with this type of flexible representation of what the research can achieve or predict. In the Swedish press, where alarmist reporting based on research findings has been even more prevalent than in Norway, two members of the association Vetenskap & Allmänhet (Public and Science Sweden) commented during a debate based on a survey conducted by the association: 

Unrealistic hopes for immediate solutions to all kinds of problems lead to disappointment and misunderstanding. People are tired of alarmist reports – 80 per cent do not want new research results to be disseminated to the general public until they have been confirmed by other studies by other researchers! (Hjelm-Wallén and Modéer 2004, our translation). 

An important task of researchers is rather to make uncertainties, limitations and values inherent in their research visible. Why? The answer lies in integrity and trust. We must be able to assume that responsible science communicates scientific uncertainty. Researchers who acknowledge the areas of uncertainty in their knowledge base and are transparent about them enjoy greater credibility than those who pretend to have almost all the answers. Confidence in the experts’ knowledge depends on how aware they are of shortcomings and uncertainty in their subject. 
 
Researchers need to view themselves and their research in a wider social context. However, that is not to say there are no limits to what can be said in public as a researcher. Realising their limitations means deferring to others when they receive enquiries that should be answered by someone else.  

Seeing the journalist 

But how can an ethical media practice be realised as long as researchers have to relate to journalists? It is true that journalists are subject to organisational frameworks that offer little scope for different perspectives and uncertainty in research. Standard phrases in journalism include “new research shows” and “researchers have found that”. “Discoveries” and “breakthroughs” are brought to the fore, and the language and angle often emphasise the “dramatic” and the “strange”. The pressure to produce good copy within a tight deadline goes some way to explaining the use of such frames and formulaic language. Journalists also want to appeal to readers by explicitly describing the value of the research being written about.  
 
At the same time, however, journalists’ understanding of their job in relation to research is evolving. Where they previously tended to consider themselves to be popularisers on behalf of selected research groups, they now also see themselves as critical investigators who want to highlight the uncertainty and ethical dilemmas that arise in connection with research (Hornmoen, Meyer and Sylwan 2006; Priest, 2013). Journalism’s range of genres – from commentaries, feature articles and news reports to profiles and long-form “scrollytelling” in digital journalism – is flexible enough to allow for a type of article that is likely to become even more widespread in the press in the future, for example, in the weekend supplements of newspapers or in NRK’s climate section. These are “multi-voiced” articles, which use a variety of modalities (for example text, images, audio and video) and multiple research sources to provide different interpretations of findings, or different analyses or perceptions of the social consequences that certain types of research may have, such as in the fields of environmental research, military research or artificial intelligence. In addition to the expert’s analyses, such reports may include the views and experiences of the laity. 
 
An ability and willingness to reflect on the basis for their assertions is something that journalists are increasingly likely to demand from researchers. This ought really to be an excellent challenge for researchers. They can contribute to an exciting public dialogue that illustrates how they can have fundamentally different ways of thinking about a phenomenon, different theories of how knowledge is produced in a research field. 

Temporary truths 

Ideally, the public media is a place where research and the related priorities, ethics and cultures can be discussed. Researchers are faced with the challenge of helping to expand this forum into a platform for exchanging knowledge about research. Inviting reflection on the fascinating fact that our understanding of the world is continuously evolving is also a part of this. Science is, after all, a never-ending project of temporary truths: What is true today may not be true tomorrow. Learning to understand that is perhaps the greatest stimulant of all. 

Literature 

Bucchi, Massimiano (2004), “Communicating Science”, i Bucchi og A. Belton (ed.), Science in Society. An introduction to social studies of science, London: Routledge 
 
Carlsen, Bente; Ingrid Müftüoglu & Hanne Riese (2014), Forskning i media: Forskere om motivasjon og erfaringer fra medieintervjuer. Norsk medietidsskrift, 21(3), 188–208. doi: 10.18261/ISSN0805-9535-2014-03-02 
 
Cloître, Michel, Terry Shinn (1985),“Expository Practice. Social, Cognitive and Epistemological Linkage”, i Shinn, Terry, Richard Whitley (eds.), Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel 
 
Fleming, Ryan (2011), Gamers solve decade old AIDS puzzle in ten days, Digital Trends September 19, 2011 
 
Heyl, Ansa; Marina Joubert & Lars Guenther (2020), Churnalism and Hype in Science Communication: Comparing University Press Releases and Journalistic Articles in South Africa, Communication, 46:2, 126-145, DOI: 10.1080/02500167.2020.1789184 
 
Hilgartner, Stephen (1990),”The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses”, in Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-39 
 
Hjelm-Wallén, Lena; Camilla Modéer (2004), ”Åtta av tio svenskar trötta på forskares larmrapporter”, in Dagens Nyheter 09.11.2004 
 
Hornmoen, Harald; Gitte Meyer, Peter Sylwan (2006), Fornuften har flere stemmer. Offentligheten, journalisten og forskeren. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk 
 
Hornmoen, Harald (2007).  Når popularisering fjerner forskning fra fellesskapet. Arr - Idéhistorisk tidsskrift.  
 
Kierulf, A, (2017), … en åpen og opplyst offentlig samtale» - Forskningsformidling som demokratisk ansvar, Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 34 (1) 
 
Newman, Nic; Richard Fletcher, Kirsten Eddy, Craig T. Robertson, & Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (2023) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023 
 
Peters, Hans Peter (2013), Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. PNAS, 110 (3), 14102–14109 
 
Priest, Susanna (2013), Critical science literacy: What citizens and journalists need to know to make sense of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 138–145. doi: 10.1177/0270467614529707 
 
Robbins, Martin (2011). Science Churnalism. The Guardian, 25.04.2011.   
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/apr/25/1 

This article was translated by Samtext International AS.