Ensuring that science is conveyed is an increasingly important part of the research procedure, if in terms of securing grant financing or attracting the attention required to further create a concept.
The concept of raising awareness of academic work at the media was the topic of a current newspaper from investigators at Griffith University, Australia. The paper highlights just how challenging it is to communicate research effectively, and the authors indicate that a storytelling approach could be helpful. As support should be provided by universities in developing abilities.
They advocate a four-step approach for investigators to take:
- Scoping — this stage entails investigating what the researcher needs to make sure the message is as easy as possible. This phase will consist of identifying the viewers and discovering the narrative to tell.
- Improvement — another phase then sees the narrative written and created.
- Release — will probably demand the release of the narrative.
- Review — the last phase then reviews the achievement of the project after a acceptable timeframe has elapsed to gauge its success.
“We believe that there is great potential to employ your model across various institutes and research studies. We were also impressed that the approach had already shown its positive effect in generating research funds from new sources,” the writers say.
How we have science
It’s an interesting approach, but a better one is to really explore how we have scientific content. A current study from the Pew Research Center highlights the challenge faced when seeking to make sure taxpayers get precise information, particularly about scientific issues. The research found that Americans instead get it from mainstream books by happenstance, and knowingly seek out scientific information.
Interestingly, this is despite subscribers using a generally low opinion of those sources in terms of their accuracy and dependability. With just 28 percent of respondents believing the mainstream media are likely to they regard specialty sources such as museums, science magazines and documentaries as having the highest chance of reporting science accurately.
The respondents reported that a number of problems with the way science is reported in the media, such as:
- Reporting findings that don’t hold up to examination
- Failing to discern between low and high Excellent study
- Jumping to conclusions concerning how findings use in real-life
Perhaps the issue is one of the means of storytelling since the accuracy of message. This was underlined by a recent study from the University of Sydney that highlighted the ‘spin’ many investigators placed on their findings. It reveals that over 25 percent of biomedical newspapers mean to mislead or distort their findings.
The authors conducted a review of 35 published papers on the subject of ‘spin’ . Their meta analysis demonstrated that over 25 percent of newspapers had some sort of spin with the figure rising to some depressing 84% in studies.