Civic Science Literature Review (Working Paper)
Exploring the Intersection of Science, Journalism and Public Engagement
Abstract
Definitions of Civic Science and Citizen Science have evolved over time. Civic Science, as defined by Neal Lane in 1996, involves engaging in public dialogue about science and society. While the terms Civic Science and Citizen Science are often used interchangeably today, they represent distinct concepts. Citizen Science involves community participation in scientific projects like ecological surveys, while Civic Science emphasizes bridging the gap between scientific practice and policy formation.
Challenges persist in fostering collaboration between science and journalism. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing distrust in science, fueled by mixed messaging and politicization. Surveys indicate declining public trust in scientific experts, a trend observed across various societal issues. Motivated reasoning contributes to polarization, with political and religious affiliations influencing acceptance of scientific evidence.
Media influence further complicates the landscape, with misinformation, disinformation and media bias shaping public perceptions of scientific experts and their advice. Despite efforts to maintain journalistic integrity, financial constraints and reliance on institutional sources pose challenges to accurate science reporting.
To address these challenges, collaboration between scientists and journalists must be redefined. Civic science projects like the Forever Pollution Project demonstrate the potential of cross-disciplinary collaboration, with journalists contributing to data gathering and analysis. Norms and roles within science must be renegotiated to accommodate dialogue with society and acknowledge diverse perspectives.
Moving forward, defining clear research agendas and aligning stakeholder motivations are essential for effective collaboration. By fostering dialogue and transparency throughout the science process, stakeholders can work towards a shared goal of promoting public trust in science and journalism.
Definitions
One of the earliest definitions of Civic Science can be traced back to Neal Lane, the Director of the National Science Foundation, who in 1996 described it as engaging in “a new dialogue with the American electorate.”
In contemporary discourse, the terms "Civic Science" and "Citizen Science" are frequently employed interchangeably, yet their connotations warrant distinction. While "Citizen Science" denotes the involvement of community members in scientific endeavors, encompassing activities like ecological surveys and air pollution monitoring, "Civic Science" diverges by emphasizing the fusion of scientific engagement with policy formation. Though it may integrate aspects of citizen science, Civic Science fundamentally serves as a conduit between scientific practice and policy implementation.
JA Garlick and P Levine in their paper, Where civics meets science: building science for the public good through Civic Science, forego the mention of journalism in their definition of Civic Science as a discipline that “aspires to teach civic capacities, to inform the responsibilities of scientists engaged in public science issues and to inspire an open-minded, inclusive dialogue where all voices are heard and shared commitments are acknowledged.”
These delineations collectively address the challenge of bridging the gap between science and civic engagement, crucial for fostering an informed public and nurturing trust in scientific institutions. In essence, Civic Science endeavors to democratize scientific endeavors, facilitating their integration into policy-making, civic involvement, and driving political transformation. One way to bridge this gap is through journalism as a way to foster dialogue and community, fact-check, and amplify science and democratize information.
Issues at the intersection of science, journalism, and the public
Regrettably, the realms of science and journalism have long functioned in isolation, characterized by minimal communication and interaction. Several recurring challenges have emerged as a consequence:
The public doesn’t trust science.
The pandemic intensified preexisting skepticism and hastened the emergence of science skeptics. As noted by Ryan Cross in Chemical & Engineering News amidst the crisis, “the confluence of rapidly evolving science, mixed messaging, misinformation, and flagrant politicization in the US is creating a perfect storm for eroding trust in science.” The pandemic also accelerated the scientific process, laying bare its expedited outcomes for global scrutiny. According to Kasisomayajula Viswanath, professor of health communication at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “all of the sudden everyone is watching scientists, and they are seeing all the messiness of how science happens.”
According to Pew Research Center, the public’s trust in science and scientists has been steadily declining, and markedly so since the pandemic. Trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic. The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists – saying they have a great deal of confidence in them – has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today. Not only is trust declining, but distrust is growing. Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, up from 12% in April 2020.
Disillusionment with science and scientists isn't confined to the pandemic era; numerous surveys and polls have chronicled pervasive distrust in the United States toward scientific experts and their guidance on a multitude of issues spanning decades. Concerns regarding global warming, obesity, healthcare, and nuclear power have consistently underscored this skepticism over time.
Recent research in psychology has shed light on a fundamental aspect of human behavior: the tendency to undervalue valuable advice, a phenomenon termed 'advice discounting.' Remarkably, this occurs even when the advice comes from a recognized expert whose insights would objectively lead to better outcomes. Scholars increasingly attribute this discounting of advice and distrust in scientific experts to motivated reasoning, wherein individuals are driven to discredit or dismiss evidence that contradicts their existing beliefs and attitudes. This phenomenon of motivated reasoning may elucidate the polarization of distrust along political and religious lines. For instance, liberals tend to reject scientific evidence supporting nuclear power, while conservatives are more inclined to dismiss evidence concerning climate change.
Media may fan the flames of the war on science
Literature has also conjectured that the media plays a role in shaping distrust in scientific experts and scientific advice. The proliferation of misinformation and disinformation has the potential to sway consumers' beliefs. With regard to scientific evidence specifically, analyses of media content reveal a consistent pattern in conservative media outlets disputing the consensus on climate change. Additionally, an annual Gallup poll has indicated that since 2007, a significant portion of Americans, ranging from 33% to 45%, perceive the severity of global warming as "generally exaggerated" based on news coverage. Conversely, CNN tends to allocate less airtime to climate skeptics. However, the evidence linking media bias to viewers' trust in scientific experts is often inconclusive. The correlation observed between media slant and viewer skepticism could be attributed to the self-selecting nature of individuals choosing which media sources to engage with.
Furthermore, the internet reigns as the primary source of science news for younger demographics. With the evolution of internet technologies, virtually anyone can become an author of misinformation or disinformation and spread it instantly. As Poleman et al notes, “the internet as a whole has no gatekeeper function — the credible expert is side by side with the charlatan or the blatant commercial,” rendering the quest for quality science journalism increasingly arduous amidst the deluge of information disseminated through interconnected digital platforms in our society.
The important point is that the media can serve as a confirming force for dangerous beliefs.
There is a dearth of quality publicly accessible science information
The New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer commonly feature science news stories that include the names and affiliations of researchers. However, analyses reveal that only 35% of these stories provide the context of prior research that is necessary to enable the reader to draw informed conclusions. Editorial pressures to maintain "balance" can also inadvertently hinder journalists from accurately portraying competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the broader scientific community. Moreover, assessing the credibility of different sides in a scientific debate demands a profound expertise on the subject matter, a resource few journalists possess. Even beat reporters, who may be well-versed in certain scientific domains, might lack familiarity with others they're suddenly tasked with covering.
A concerning trend among science journalists is the increasing reliance on single institutional sources, such as universities and research institutes. This practice poses challenges when presenting research, as it may lead to the uncritical acceptance of information without rigorous questioning. The precarious economics of the science journalism industry exacerbate the situation. Financial hardships within media organizations have prompted cost-saving measures, including staff reductions and the discontinuation of specific beats, notably science coverage. In 2023, National Geographic laid off all of its staff reporters, Wired laid off 20 people, and Popular Science announced it would stop publishing its magazine after a 151-year run, and laid off the majority of its staff.
Journalists and scientists don’t always get along
The dynamic between scientists and the journalists reporting on their research has been fraught for as long as both professions have existed. The reality is, for the public to grasp and endorse responsible science and journalism, there's a mutual dependency: journalists require scientists, and scientists require journalists. Both professions strive for objectivity, albeit through distinct approaches, often leading to misunderstandings and tensions stemming from a lack of transparency regarding each other's methodologies. In the realm of science, objectivity entails adherence to the scientific method, ensuring research validity, reliability, and intersubjectivity. In journalism, objectivity has traditionally centered on the delivery of precise and unbiased information via purportedly balanced, fair, and neutral reporting. As outlined by Gans in his seminal newsroom study, American journalists historically upheld professional detachment and objectivity by abstaining from political affiliations or discussions within their ranks. However, despite being a widely pursued ideal in journalism, objectivity has always been a subject of debate. Numerous scholars contend that reporting steeped in "objectivity" is ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of everyday life and may even fuel public disillusionment with news and civic engagement.
Moreover, traditional journalistic fact-checking protocols often encounter pushback from science collaborators. Many news organizations strictly prohibit sources from reviewing drafts, aiming to minimize the influx of potentially biased "corrections." While this practice is standard, it does little to assuage scientists' concerns that their research may be misrepresented or obscured in the final article.
As distrust in science mounts, and as society grapples with imminent scientific and humanitarian catastrophes (climate change, pandemics, etc), now more than ever we need to foster public trust in science and journalism, increase the accessibility of quality science information, and foster better collaboration between science and journalism. As Arthur Caplan put in Bioethics Today, “We need scientists who see it as their duty to engage broader audiences about their work then their peers. We need training of scholars in the public understanding of science so more informed voices are heard in the public arena who respect science and the scientific method.”
Many media theorists and communication experts believe that journalism is well fitted to foster this much-needed dialogue and fill the gap between science and civic action. Journalism, they proffer, is apt to “teach civic capabilities, to inform the responsibilities of scientists engaged in public science issues and to inspire an open-minded inclusive dialogue where all voices are heard and shared commitments are acknowledged.” As Buschow et al wrote “functioning as a distinct mode of public engagement with science, science journalism serves as a crucial conduit for the dissemination of scientific findings, for understanding and controlling scientific institutions and actors, and exploring processes within research communities.”
The role of journalism in creating an informed populace
Many theorists and researchers concur that in an ideal society, journalism serves as a tool to educate the public, enabling individuals to make informed decisions and advocate for democratic change.
In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville highlighted in "Democracy in America" the significance of staying informed with current affairs. He argued that a well-informed citizen could effectively participate in political processes like elections, engaging in informed deliberation and partisan discussions. Jürgen Habermas, in "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere," similarly emphasizes the importance of citizens being informed about the news and utilizing that knowledge in constructive interactions within democratic systems. According to Habermas, the "good citizen" leverages news consumption to enrich the lives of others and promote democracy.
Christopher J. Schroll, in his work "Theorizing the Flip Side of Civic Journalism: Democratic Citizenship and Ethical Readership," proposes the concept of a "responsible reader" within the framework of civic journalism. Schroll argues that such a reader should possess the ability to ethically engage with, interpret, and utilize the news for the betterment of their community.
In 1987, James Carey took these observations one step further, noting that it isn’t enough for the commentariat to treat the public as an audience, but rather they must work with the public as a partner. Carey wrote that community members will “reawaken when they are addressed as a conversational partner and are encouraged to join the talk rather than sit passively as spectators before a discussion conducted by journalists and political experts.”
Several theorists built on James Carey’s 1987 call to action by advocating for a “dialogic,” a mode of journalistic communication intended to spark reader interaction at a multiplicity of levels. For example, Joseph Poleman Et al, in the paper Adapting Practices of Science Journalism to Foster Science Literacy, emphasizes the importance of developing a population of “competent outsiders to science.” “Citizens will face several kinds of situations involving science and technology information: personal choices such as treatments for health conditions and adoption of new technologies, public debates such as those around policy related to climate change, and aesthetic/cultural appreciation.” Skills of science journalism, the authors assert, can develop this populus of “competent outsiders.”
This “dialogic” must be community-centered. Christopher J. Schroll writes “citizen-readers must be articulate in identifying the points of inequality that exist and often drive community problems. Community-connected citizen-readers must be able to maintain their connections and continue to interact even though the tenor of discourse is conflict laden.”
In public health, the value of open dialogue becomes evident, particularly in the context of responding to viral or bacterial outbreaks, including pandemics. Achieving herd immunity—where enough of the population is immune to substantially lower infection risks for those without immunity—requires a significant level of vaccine acceptance from the public. Trust in scientific expertise and the ability to navigate vast amounts of information, which varies in reliability, can alleviate uncertainties surrounding vaccines and mitigate vaccine hesitancy. Greater confidence in scientists is likely to promote higher vaccination rates among individuals.
JA Garlick and P Levine put it simply, “systems built to support science do not reward open-minded thinking, inclusive dialogue, and moral responsibility regarding science issues. As a result, public faith in science continues to erode.” JA Garelick and P Levine pose the question: “could we create a forum in which all sides have a voice while working to find common ground on shared values that unite us?”
Civic Science collaborations are needed
JA Garlick and P Levine write that civic science collaborations are needed to create an inclusive science communication environment that “brings together stakeholders with diverse values and interests and works to build dialogue where all voices are heard and shared commitments to finding common ground are acknowledged.” They argue that in order to do this successfully, civic science projects must “bring out diverse points of view on science issues and help individuals see commonality where they once saw difference and difference where they once saw commonality.”
In recent years, collaborative initiatives have blurred the boundaries between science and journalism. Beginning in 2017, the "Marches for Science" mobilized scientists to take to the streets, stepping out of their offices and laboratories to advocate for scientific causes. Subsequently, in 2019, youth-led movements such as the "Climate Strikes" and "Fridays for Future" protests galvanized global attention toward climate action. Notably, over 26,800 supporters and scientists, primarily from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, endorsed the "Scientists for Future" declaration in solidarity with these movements.
Amid the 2020 Coronavirus crisis, daily podcasts featuring virologists emerged as a vital source of information, reaching broad audiences. These instances exemplify the emergence of "scientist citizens," diverging from the traditional role of the "pure scientist" who remains detached from societal concerns, values, and political conflicts.
What has to happen to foster more engagement?
Norms have to be renegotiated. Post-Normal science (PNS), as outlined by Funtowicz and Ravetz, starts from the assumption that future developments are unpredictable and uncontrollable. It takes a plurality of perspectives on “reality” as legitimate. Science is expected to actively manage the uncertainties associated with its findings, be transparent about the value questions involved, and engage with an extended peer community when formulating policy advice. Transparency, robustness, uncertainty management, sustainability and transdisciplinarity are the norms that are supposed to complement this framework. Robustness refers to methodological as well as social robustness: the inclusion of a broad range of relevant actors ensures that science-based policy advice will be acceptable to all stakeholders involved. Funtowicz and Ravetz suggest that scientists from other disciplines, as well as journalists, civil society organizations, or even lay people could become part of this extended peer community that evaluates the policy conclusions that follow from scientific findings.
Roles have to be renegotiated and dialogue has to be fostered throughout the science process. As previously established, journalism, science, and policy often operate in separated silos. In order to effectively collaborate, the siloed model has to be renegotiated, with scientists, journalists, and other collaborators accepting and expecting roles outside of traditional norms. One civic science journalism-science collaboration that successfully negotiated these roles is The Forever Pollution Project. In early 2023, the Forever Pollution Project uncovered alarming findings: nearly 23,000 sites across Europe are tainted by "forever chemicals" known as PFAs through a collaborative effort spanning 16 European newsrooms. The project used ~100 datasets from research institutes, universities, scientific research teams, and freedom of information requests filed by journalists across Europe. In this collaborative effort, journalists were able to participate in the data gathering and harmonizing process. Journalists are well-equipped to locate hard-to-find data, unearth unknown studies, and locate hidden information. The Forever Pollution Project enabled journalists to step outside their traditional role of the mouthpiece in journalism-science collaborations, which resulted in richer and more comprehensive datasets.
The image of the pure scientist as a disinterested, value-free researcher who freely shares his or her knowledge but does not engage in advocacy, cannot be upheld. Scientists have to engage in a dialogue with society and publicly accept other (non-scientific) views as legitimate. They have to engage with the public throughout the research process — not only after the publication of their research. Furthermore, they have to discuss both the uncertainties and the value questions associated with their research, and when moving from scientific research results to policy advice.
Purpose has to be defined. The Innovation Fund, a successful German civic science journalism collaboration, noted the importance of having an “issue-oriented agenda, as transformative research focuses on concrete research problems, challenges, and critical decision-making situations within journalistic practice.” Additionally, collaborators must navigate the task of agreeing upon a clear and manageable set of research questions to steer the collaboration forward. This can prove challenging, especially when engaging with diverse stakeholders. “Diverse motives and incentive systems among the various stakeholders involved … are emerging as a prime challenge. Each stakeholder group may have distinct objectives that influence their commitment to the project,” writes the Innovation Fund. Consider this: researchers are often driven by the prospect of pioneering innovative research methods and achieving publication, while financiers may prioritize bolstering their reputation. Journalists, on the other hand, might be motivated by the imperative to sustain science journalism. The degree of alignment among these motivations fluctuates from one project to another. However, it is crucial for all collaborators to synchronize their objectives to prevent scope creep and potential friction within the collaboration.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the intricate relationship between science, journalism, and society demands a reevaluation of traditional norms and roles. As evidenced by collaborative initiatives like the Forever Pollution Project, there is immense potential for cross-disciplinary collaboration to address pressing societal challenges. However, achieving meaningful collaboration requires transparent dialogue, alignment of stakeholder motivations, and a commitment to fostering public trust in both science and journalism.
The challenges highlighted, from declining public trust in science to media influence on perceptions, underscore the urgency of this endeavor. By redefining norms and roles within the scientific community, embracing transparency, and prioritizing issue-oriented agendas, stakeholders can navigate the complexities of the modern information landscape.
Ultimately, the convergence of science and journalism presents an opportunity to bridge divides, cultivate informed citizenship, and inspire positive societal change. Through collaborative efforts grounded in transparency, dialogue, and shared purpose, we can move towards a future where science and journalism work hand in hand to serve the public good.