Dataset Information

Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.

ABSTRACT: Over the past years, pundits, journalists, and others have diagnosed fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science. Many of them have posited that audiences are becoming more critical toward science or that people trust science less. However, systematic empirical analyses of such assertions are lacking. Based on panel survey data (N = 339) and segmentation analysis, we investigate migration between four segments of the Swiss population over 3 years. We find that 45% of participants changed their attitude between 2016 and 2019 to such an extent that they got assigned to a more positive or more critical audience segment. The majority of them migrated to more critical segments, which is in line with assumptions of fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science.

SUBMITTER: Klinger K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9131415 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.

Klinger Kira K Metag Julia J Schäfer Mike S MS Füchslin Tobias T Mede Niels N

Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) 20220127 5

Over the past years, pundits, journalists, and others have diagnosed fundamental shifts in the public's perception of science. Many of them have posited that audiences are becoming more critical toward science or that people trust science less. However, systematic empirical analyses of such assertions are lacking. Based on panel survey data (<i>N</i> = 339) and segmentation analysis, we investigate migration between four segments of the Swiss population over 3 years. We find that 45% of particip ...[more]

PMID: 35086392

Similar Datasets

Project description:Visualizing research data can be an important science communication tool. In recent decades, 3D data visualization has emerged as a key tool for engaging public audiences. Such visualizations are often embedded in scientific documentaries screened on giant domes in planetariums or delivered through video streaming services such as Amazon Prime. 3D data visualization has been shown to be an effective way to communicate complex scientific concepts to the public. With its ability to convey information in a scientifically accurate and visually engaging way, cinematic-style 3D data visualization has the potential to benefit millions of viewers by making scientific information more understandable and interesting. Maximizing the effectiveness of 3D data visualization can benefit millions of viewers. To support a wider shift in this professional field towards more evidence-based practice in 3D data visualization to enhance science communication impact, we have conducted a survey experiment comparing audience responses to two versions of 3D data visualizations from a scientific documentary film on the theme of 'solar superstorms' (n = 577). This study was conducted using a single (with two levels: labeled and unlabeled), between-subjects, factorial design. It reveals key strengths and weaknesses of communicating science using 3D data visualization. It also shows the limited power of strategically deployed informational labels to affect audience perceptions of the documentary film and its content. The major difference identified between experimental and control groups was that the quality ratings of the documentary film clip were significantly higher for the 'labeled' version. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences. The limited effects of informational labels point to the idea that other aspects, such as the story structure, voiceover narration and audio-visual content, are more important determinants of outcomes. This study concludes with a discussion of how this new research evidence informs our understanding of 'what works and why' with cinematic-style 3D data visualizations for the public.

Project description:ObjectivesTo trial a simplified, time and cost-saving method for remote evaluation of fellowship applications and compare this with existing panel review processes by analysing concordance between funding decisions, and the use of a lottery-based decision method for proposals of similar quality.DesignThe study involved 134 junior fellowship proposals for postdoctoral research ('Postdoc.Mobility'). The official method used two panel reviewers who independently scored the application, followed by triage and discussion of selected applications in a panel. Very competitive/uncompetitive proposals were directly funded/rejected without discussion. The simplified procedure used the scores of the two panel members, with or without the score of an additional, third expert. Both methods could further use a lottery to decide on applications of similar quality close to the funding threshold. The same funding rate was applied, and the agreement between the two methods analysed.SettingSwiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).ParticipantsPostdoc.Mobility panel reviewers and additional expert reviewers.Primary outcome measurePer cent agreement between the simplified and official evaluation method with 95% CIs.ResultsThe simplified procedure based on three reviews agreed in 80.6% (95% CI: 73.9% to 87.3%) of applicants with the official funding outcome. The agreement was 86.6% (95% CI: 80.6% to 91.8%) when using the two reviews of the panel members. The agreement between the two methods was lower for the group of applications discussed in the panel (64.2% and 73.1%, respectively), and higher for directly funded/rejected applications (range: 96.7%-100%). The lottery was used in 8 (6.0%) of 134 applications (official method), 19 (14.2%) applications (simplified, three reviewers) and 23 (17.2%) applications (simplified, two reviewers). With the simplified procedure, evaluation costs could have been halved and 31 hours of meeting time saved for the two 2019 calls.ConclusionAgreement between the two methods was high. The simplified procedure could represent a viable evaluation method for the Postdoc.Mobility early career instrument at the SNSF.

Dataset Information

Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.

Publications

Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets