The concept of science literacy is traditionally framed as a knowledge-deficit model. This model theorizes that the reason science is not trusted for decision-making is because people have not received enough information or they do not understand how science works. The model assumes that if people were more informed about science, they would more likely use and trust it. However, this model underestimates other factors that affect trust in science, including the influence of how science is portrayed by information media. Slater et al. (2021) highlight how the media ecosystem is susceptible to economic influences, which in turn affects how science is communicated to the public. In this case, since other factors are at play, the issue is not merely a knowledge-deficit matter. If we wish to improve public trust in and use of science, it is important to determine how the media present scientific information. In this blog post, I review three papers on science media to better understand how the media could play a role in improving trust in science through the lens of three types of science literacy.
According to Howell and Brossard (2021), the concept of science literacy can be separated into three categories: civic science literacy, digital media science literacy, and cognitive science literacy. Understanding these three types of literacy can prompt better support for corrective measures to ensure the public is capable of discerning and avoiding misinformation and make informed decisions about scientific evidence. In an ideal world, people would develop science literacy skills during primary and secondary education; however, in practice this outcome has not occurred. Howell and Brossard (2021) suggest that the best way to improve science literacy is to engage with the media sources people already use and rely on. They propose that existing media outlets could increase science literacy by explaining the norms and processes leading to scientific results and by illustrating how science should be interpreted within a societal context.
Similarly, Slater et al. (2021) suggest that embedding information about the scientific process in media reports, so as to build science literacy, could increase public trust in science and achieve what Howell and Brossard refer to as “civic science literacy.” Slater et al. (2021) found that reporting about science tends to emphasize large breakthroughs rather than the scientific enterprise as a whole. In today’s digital click economy, the norms of journalism often focuses on discrete events, rather than accounting for the practices of science and its social context. By excluding the science knowledge building processes from reports of the results, members of the public are more likely to become skeptical about the accuracy of scientific findings, because they do not know how the scientific data were produced. Thus, Slater et al. recommend that more nuanced coverage of the scientific process, including explaining particular methods, would promote a fuller and more robust understanding of science.
Giving attention to the scientific process in media reports may help to address the deficit in civic literacy. Today, however, it is also becoming increasingly important to discuss concerns of both media literacy and cognitive literacy (Howell & Brossard, 2021). The current media ecosystem is rife with misinformation, especially with the proliferation of AI-generated content. Shining a light on the scientific process will only support scientific literacy if the public has the knowledge to understand and accept this information as accurate. Often, the challenge in science communication is that large swaths of the public lack the digital media literacy to differentiate between fact and opinion. Some people still allot more significance to opinions over evidence. Building critical skills for media literacy and cognitive science literacy requires that both receive similar attention to ensure the public is properly equipped to assess science information.
In considering this issue, Lester and Foxwell-Norton (2020) propose a different avenue for addressing science literacy through the media. Rather than putting more and more information in front of the public, they suggest that communication of science to the public could be modified to more clearly outline how research and policy are connected so that members of the public understand how scientific findings do and do not affect policy. This approach suggests that both the media and scientists have a responsibility to engage in science education, and to reach members of the public in ways that will help them to understand science. These authors recommend that by taking a more socially conscious perspective and by considering public understanding of science, journalists and scientists can improve public communication of science. This suggestion requires a strong collaborative effort between scientists and communication experts.
Overall, addressing weaknesses in public science literacy through the news media will likely require a multi-prong approach that considers each of the three types of science literacy. Embedding information about the scientific process in media stories and improving science communication are two remedies, but are likely insufficient on their own to address the severity of science literacy issues in today’s multi-channel media world. Howell and Brossard (2021) especially note that encouraging science literacy is not necessarily a cure for the broader societal concerns of polarization and political turbulence. However, increased science literacy will hopefully yield greater support for science and its value within society, help the public to understand science better, and promote independent critical thinking on science debates. These skills are crucial for public understanding and engagement in decisions about local and global issues in our contemporary volatile media climate.
References
Howell, E. L., & Brossard, D. (2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912436117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117
Lester, L., & Foxwell-Norton, K. (2020). Citizens and science: Media, communication and conservation. In W. J. Sutherland, P. N. M. Brotherton, Z. G. Davies, N. Ockendon, N. Pettorelli, & J. A. Vickery (Eds.), Conservation research, policy and practice (Chapter 16, pp. 265-276). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108638210.016
Slater, M. H., Scholfield, E. R., & Moore, J. C. (2021). Reporting on science as an ongoing process (or not). Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.535474
Author: Bailey Kaye
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Scientific Communication; Student Submission
