Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
PART -1 - Introduction
Science is not finished until it’s communicated.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough - Einstein
Science becomes immoral when it focuses myopically on discovery and fails to fully consider real-world impacts.
Doing hard research by scientists in fort-like labs that are inaccessable to the outside world is one side of Science. Then communicating it in the right manner the world can understand and get benefited by it is a different ball game altogether.
Scientists publish their work in science journals with all the data and statistics and in a language that seems like Greek and Latin to the man on the street even if he is literate. Then think about the situation of illiterates. To a large section of people, these science journals don't exist at all!
These journals are used by scientists to communicate their work only to their colleagues in their field.
After making these exciting discoveries by scientists, without the ability to communicate their importance to a variety of audiences will severely diminish the potential of this work to positively affect society.
Usually transferring the complex science concepts from the labs to the ordinary world in the manner that makes some sense will be done by science journalists. They do it in the way in which they understand because it is very difficult even for them to understand the jargon and data and depend on the scientists' explanations to communicate the difficult subject. Therefore a miscommunication is taking place ( Ref.4) with the result that science is being misunderstood and even hated by some. People feel the disconnect with science all around in the West (Ref.10) (and to some extent in the East too) from a common misconception that evolution is a theory that says human beings descended directly from the monkeys, to the worry that physicists in Geneva might suck the universe into a tea cup — or something uncomfortably smaller - unsubstantiated fears that the Large Hadron Collider, used to study subatomic particles, might create a black hole. Some think science is responsible for all the ills we are facing in the world now. One third of Americans are rejecting the theory of evolution (13,15). A move is afoot to keep climate science and evolution out of classrooms in the US now (10). And on several major issues we face, the views of public drastically differ from those of scientists in some parts of the world (17 ). Despite tremendous progress brought by science and technology, several people - irrespective of their literary status - still remain entangled in blind and superstitious states of mind as in the dark ages (7,12,15) proving that the communication system had failed to a large extent. Moreover, the influence of politics (Ref 2,3,6,8,16) and commercialization of the fruits of science (Ref 1, 14) are taking their toll on both scientific research and journalism with the former dancing to the tunes of its mentors (14) and the latter falling prey to conflicting stories. This is resulting in ordinary people being left to deal with the chaos themselves driving them to question the integrity of science.
Main Reason for misinformation in science: Nearly all the messages about science are coming from people who are 'talking about' science 'rather than doing' science. That is why sci-com by real scientists is very important ... to arrest fake news.
It's important for lay people to have some understanding of the science involved in the important problems we are facing right now like climate change, antibiotic resistance, vaccine safety, etc. to take right decisions and cooperate with the governing bodies. Unfortunately, coverage of scientific topics in the mass media all too often oversimplifies, fails to provide adequate context, and in some instances is downright wrong. Science can be pretty off-putting if it gets all tangled up in jargon and sounds like something tough and impenetrable to the average person. The communicator really has a job here to be an effective articulator of what the point is, what the progress is, why it matters, why it’s exciting, how it could be helpful.
Science is communicated by journalists in two ways: S cience "journalism" (contextualising, investigating and, at times, challenging science) and just science "communication" (a public relations exercise that is brought directly from the scripts of scientific institutions).
Reporting of science is particularly difficult when compared with other fields of journalism or that it is bad because of some special property that science but no other discipline possesses - "the scientific methods" and "peer review". For good science journalism to happen, journalists must try to stay at arm's length from their sources according to journalists. Failing to remain at one-step-removed runs the risk of turning a piece of journalism into some drippy, flaccid piece of science communication. What a journalist should be really doing when reporting science is asking questions and deflating exaggeration. But do scientists have vested interests in the way their work is portrayed in the media? The answer is yes to some extent. Practically any story has the potential to have an impact on a scientist's reputation or his/her next grant application. Journalists, on the other hand, must try to be independent if they are to be credible. Scientists feel Journalists should get the science right in their articles and let them look at the copy before publication to ensure accuracy. As an outsider, media can be irresponsible while reporting by sensationalizing issues like the GM crop stories. Sometimes research is applied out of context to create dramatic headlines, push thinly disguised ideological arguments, or support particular policy agendas. Scientists who demand to see a draft or journalists who let them may be doing so with the best of intentions. But does it betray the reader or the viewer? Reporters will give the story an angle that has their reader or viewer firmly in mind. Sometimes they give it a spin to sensationalize the stories. The biggest issue is that often the media purposefully produce rubbish scientific stories, as it can suit their agendas(ref 9). This is abuse, and there needs to be some form of policing to stop abuse! For instance one journalist wrote very interesting stories saying that intuition and other non scientific methods were being used by scientists. Some artists who read them thought that was true and argued with me saying that such practices were universal and critical to scientific research! I was shocked to hear such nonsense being spread by journalists. Unlike others what the scientists use is 'educated guessing' or 'informed imagination' which is different from ordinary 'intuition'. The imagination of a scientist is based on reality. If the journalists give the working of scientific methods a spin to suit their write ups it is bad science journalism that leads to misunderstandings. Unlike the journalists the reader or viewer is not a scientist's first concern. As a result, researchers can often suggest changes that would flatten the tone, or introduce caveats and detail that would only matter to another specialist in their own field of research. The scientists are more concerned about facts and correct representation while journalists also think about mass appeal and sales of his/her journal/paper apart from correct presentation.
The relationship between scientists and journalists remains difficult, sometimes even hostile. There are complaints on both sides — scientists doubt the ability of journalists to report accurately and responsibly on their work, while journalists complain that scientists are bad communicators, hiding behind jargon (11) and therefore can confuse them which ultimately could lead to bad reporting. Journalists have a need for digestible headlines that convey simple, accessible, and preferably novel lessons. The scientific method stresses a slow accumulation of knowledge, nuance, and doubt.
But scientists should realize that at times in a scientist's career, it can be extremely important, perhaps even critical, to have a good relationship with a few key journalists more importantly if they themselves cannot communicate their work properly.
Bad science journalism also comes from an inability to make sense of statistics and scientific data. Do journalists read primary source? Without a basic understanding of the techniques being used ( a little research here benefits everybody) or a grasp of statistics. One of the things science journalists can do to improve the quality of their work is when something they think is bad, they should ask relevant scientists to check if the facts in the story are accurately described. Because there is a special property that science but no other discipline possesses: it's extremely complicated and the gap between common knowledge and new scientific findings is ever widening. Bad stories are where reporters get the facts wrong, because they don't know what the facts are. The danger of losing the facts in translation is what worries the scientific community the most.
Stories, especially the big ones, should have some form of fact checking performed on them prior to publication. Journalists can get the story checked by another scientist who does know something about the subject and who isn't associated with the scientist or the paper that is reporting. Some journals do a good job of this and you often see quotes attributed to scientists not involved in the study passing comment as part of the new story in them. However, majority of news papers and journals that get involved in the rat races, want to publish the story first without checking the facts. It is very easy to write things better than scientists can but which subtly or not so subtly alter the meaning. Running it by a third party would be a useful compromise of checking the science without giving up journalistic principles. If something sounds odd or a scientific claim just sounds too bold, then we expect reporters to question it - and check with independent sources as to whether it stands up. It's unrealistic to expect any journalist, however scientifically literate, to have expert knowledge of all the fields in science, so there is nothing wrong with contacting a person in the field to check that your coverage makes sense. Journalists should collaborate with actual scientists more. On the other hand it would be better if Journalists themselves try to specialize in science subjects.
Journalists say they have deadlines to meet and cannot take time to verify the facts. One journalist told me his editor says - "If you can't write 500 good words an hour, you're in the wrong business." And I told the journalist - if you can write 500 science words an hour, you are in the wrong field! You chose a wrong subject! Even the most experienced science writer is not an expert in all the areas of science! You got to check and recheck facts. Scientists take years to do a paper. Can't you take even a few days to communicate it?! I want to tell these media people deadlines are death knells for science communication. Rat races kill their efficiency in science journalism.
A journalist who deals with science once asked me," If a science writer calls you up and says: 'Dr. C, I write for Y publication, and we would like to feature a precis of your paper that appeared in this morning's issue of the Journal of Last Resort. My editor gave me a copy of your paper a half hour ago, and my summary is due in an hour and a half. Could you please answer the following questions about your paper and refer me to someone else in your field who could comment on it now,' what would you say?" And my reply to her : "I would just say, 'sorry, wrong number' and hang up! Nothing annoys a scientist more than dead lines." I prefer to have no article on my work than a bad article sculpted by a dead line because I am from the life sciences and a badly written article might harm the people who read it!
Here is a gem of a quote from a scientist: Journalists take liberty with my articles in a manner that is not a slight "mishap" but an attempt to sensationalise. Everywhere in the world but more so in Africa where people may not have other resources such as books, TV or internet to counter check the info given on newspapers, such liberties at time have more than just an annoyance factor for the scientist, they actually have life and death implications...think MMR, and other anti-vaccine stories based on misquotations or poor synthesis of research information. So as a journalist in your rush to avoid being killed by your editor think how many readers you might actually harm with the article...deadlines or dead readers ...the choice is yours!
I will give another example. When Indian Space Research Organization launched Mangalyaan, its Mars Orbiter, recently, all the news papers just quoted what the scientists said during the launch, copied from ISRO's site a few details and published them the next day. I took one week to write my article and post it here, after doing thorough research on it and people told me my write up was the best they came across on the subject! Need I say more?!
And some of the things science journalists do - which might not be deliberate but still- can make people understand things differently from the way scientists want they should be understood. For instance, in their effort to "hear both sides of the story," professional journalists have contributed to the misconception that there is a "debate" among climate scientists over anthropogenic global climate change. That "debate" really exists only in the misguided minds and resulting headlines, and here is why: If a journalist tries to "balance" a quote from one of the vast majority of scientists who agree on climate change (97% according to scientific studies, ref5) with one coming from the tiny minority of those who don't (just 3%), he or she creates the wrong impression that the scientific world is equally divided about the issue. No journalistic training, only brains, can protect from such blunders.
Let us watch a funny video to really tell the world how it should be done:
Some media people don't even bother about educating people regarding scientific explanations of things happening around the world and breakthroughs because 'science' doesn't increase the readership, viewership or TRPs of the media. So they think - why spend time and space on it?
Therefore, Scientists should make more of an effort to do pieces themselves for popular media, more regularly if they want correct portrayal of their work. Some of the best blogs and stories written these days are done by real scientists. They are creating art works based on their own work. Making videos and movies is the method followed by some. I am glad scientists themselves are coming forward now to communicate with the people outside and art is being considered as one of the important tools to use in this process. Quite a lot of discussion is taking place lately in the Scientific community about the need for Scientists themselves to come forward and share their knowledge and in ways that will reach more people.
It is difficult sometimes for scientists to understand how the world sees what they see. They get entangled in scientific jargon, think and work at a different level and fail to see from the angles of ordinary people. This is because they get several years of specific and special training in the subject to deal with the complexity of science. The training turns them into experts to deal with highly complicated subjects, data and the jargon. Sometimes the jargons don't even have words to describe in common language. It becomes inconvenient and highly demanding for the scientists to deal with communication. So opening a dialogue is really important. Only when the scientists deal with the world outside of theirs, they can understand the problems faced by people in understanding them and their world and how close or far away they are from them. Then they can do full justice to their work by delivering the themes in the way the world wants. Scientists are really facing some problems in communicating with others, but they are trying to overcome them. I wrote an article on how scientists should communicate with laymen based on my experiences. You can read it here: http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/how-scienitsts-s...
I write on science topics and even stories to remove misconceptions about science I come across while dealing with people. Some of the false notions prevalent among the ordinary people are really shocking to me. Some human beings have very closed minds that are too difficult and time consuming to open. We get entangled in arguments that are quite unnecessary. Scientists will not have have so much time to waste in them. But that again shows the gap between the scientific world and the ordinary world. Now we are trying to close it. But what is the best way to do this is the issue before the scientists right now.
Scientists representing their own work in the visual communication of science is one way of doing it or working in general on science themes and science culture is another aspect. I do both text and literature and art communication of science. The former in the form of articles, stories and poems and the latter in the form of paintings, installations and videos.
Art helps science in communicating the theories, concepts, facts in a better manner. Even an illiterate person can understand science when it is showed in a picture form. A scientist knows what s/he wants to communicate therefore will be in a better position to put his/her work in a picture form. I feel when scientists are doing this, they should try to simplify things so that there won't be any communication gap between scientists and non-scientists. Some of my artist friends advised me to make my art works complex as I try to make them as simple as possible.. According to them there is no need for common people to understand art! But I disagree with them. Science is a complex subject and if you make it more complex people won't be able to understand so much complexity and move away from them and the whole purpose of communication will be lost.
Several of my colleagues in the scientific community all over the world are strongly supporting me in the way I communicate the science concepts with well balanced themes in the form of art ( You can see my work on my website: http://www.kkartfromscience.com/ ). I am glad more and more scientists are coming forward to try this method and able to do this with ease. If journalists are not bothered about science communication or good science communication, yes, scientists will have to do this work themselves.
"Telling people about science is just as important as conducting the science".
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa's poem on "Science Communication"
From the group (Art- literature-Science Interplay)
Science communication, science communication, science communication
An useful tool that converts difficult to understand things into easy translation
Brings in human beings many a right vibration
Communicators are people who guide this beautiful mutation
Yet other times cajolingly,
Using metaphors freely,
Making people trust science merrily!
If science communicators fail to convince,
In order to solve the problems we face
There is no other go but to use force
The field that gets maligned in this process is Science!
Communicators have a difficult role to play
Art, literature, text, speeches and plays are the methods to sway
Whichever route used to convey
Science messages should reach the masses every way!
Copyright © 2012 Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Science communicators of India:
Experienced science communicators share their secrets on sci-com ...
poll after poll finds that scientists are, largely, trusted to talk about science — more trusted than journalists, business leaders or elected officials. we have an opportunity to make ourselves better heard and to engage more responsibly, just by being more visible and open with the public. Let everyone know what we do, how we come to our conclusions and what drives us. Listen more. Engage respectfully.
What I absolutely love about scientists is that they generally don’t mind admitting when they are wrong. Good science means accepting new data or better explanations — even if that means what you used to believe is outdated. It’s more than OK to say you don’t know. I’m pretty sure I say “I don’t know” at least once each week! It’s not a weakness. It means there’s something new for you to learn.
But here’s the paradox. This readiness to change exposes science to mistrust. The public isn’t used to this kind of professional openness. We live in a world of sound bites. A 15-second clip is not enough to properly explain a complicated subject and discuss all the pros and cons. The idea that something is still being developed, or that there is not unanimous agreement, is often seen as unreliability, rather than honesty.
Getting the message out that science doesn’t pretend to know everything, and that it will happily self-correct when it finds a better solution, is really important. My way of doing that is to wrap the facts into a good story — something relatable with a catchy intro, a deeper middle section and, ideally, a funny ending!
First and foremost, all scientists have an obligation to tell the truth.
But the public have a desperate need for facts — facts based on the increasingly extensive statistics about the progression of the disease — both in individuals and in society.
And with human lives at stake, scientists have an obligation to get the information out and to find ways to make people listen
scientific method encourages self-criticism. Compare a scientific theory with a conspiracy theory: advocates of the latter would point out that, like any good scientist, they too are sceptics and rationalists who value the importance of evidence.
Sci-com: some scientist motivations for leaving the lab to work in science communication ....
Sci-com: Working Scientist podcast: How films and festivals can showcase your science
Exploring how science communication translates to film, comedy clubs, and virtual space clubs.
DST, India, constitutes joint Science Communication Forum to promote common policy & best practices
The Department of Science & Technology has constituted a joint Science Communication Forum with a view to facilitate interaction, cooperation, and coordination amongst various public sector science communication institutions and agencies.
The Forum brings together science communication efforts spread across various institutions and can help adoption of a common policy and best practices at a wider scale, ultimately aiming towards a national science communication framework. It is represented by senior officials from various central ministries and departments, including Agriculture, Health, Culture, Defense, Space, Atomic Energy, and Information & Broadcasting, in addition to Science & Technology.
Prof. Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary, Dept. of Science & Technology said that the Forum would work upon strategies for effective planning and implementation of science communication programmes at macro and micro level in the country to spread scientific awareness and inculcate scientific temper amongst the masses leading to an innovation-driven society that contributes towards an ecosystem for Atmanirbhar Bharat.
The Forum would be served by a Secretariat at the National Council for Science & Technology Communication (NCSTC), Department of Science & Technology, which is mandated for coordination with different organizations, programmes and activities focused on science communication in the country and orchestrating them for enhanced public understanding of science with a scientific bent of mind. It is also mandated to formulate countrywide programmes, policies, and activities in the domain of science communication and popularization in the country.
India has a very robust organizational structure on science communication. At least five national organizations are working on the growth and development of science communication. These are the National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (1951), Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education (1974), National Council of Science Museums (1978), National Council for Science & Technology Communication (1982), and Vigyan Prasar (1989). In addition, different scientific organizations have their own science communication wings. They include Unit for Science Dissemination (CSIR), Directorate of Knowledge Management in Agriculture (ICAR), Publication & Information Division (ICMR), Directorate of Public Interface (DRDO), Public Awareness Division (DAE), Office of Media & Public Relations (ISRO), Science Cells, AIR, etc. Almost all national laboratories and scientific institutions have some institutional mechanisms for science communication and public outreach.
These organizations are contributing to science communication using various ways and means and reaching out to the masses. However, there seems to be ample scope for interaction and integration for evolving and adopting common policies and following best practices at a much wider scale. Concerted and collective countrywide programmes are needed to be worked out and implemented jointly by integrating them, and eventually, a national science communication framework may emerge. The public communication of science and technology and inculcation of scientific temper among masses necessitates interaction, cooperation, and coordination amongst various stakeholders for better planning, policy, and implementation of large-scale science communication programmes in the country.
Sci-com using comics: Real-life scientists inspire these comic book superheroes
Three grad students teamed up to use storytelling and cartoons to teach tough science topics
Rhetoric as part of a broader discussion about how scientists should carefully consider their audiences when communicating. In doing so, they should think about the three basic elements of rhetoric laid out by Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle: ethos, logos and pathos.
Ethos is an appeal to ethics, which means convincing an audience of the credibility of the communicator. Relatively speaking, this is often the easiest part of the triad for scientists. Qualifications bring a recognition of expertise, while academic journals and scientific conferences have reputations often established over many years.
Logos is an appeal to logic, which again most scientists are pretty good at. The scientific method brings a structure to how science is done, which is then reflected in how papers and other communications include clear hypotheses, results and discussions.
Where it can get tricky for researchers is pathos – the appeal to passion. This is the powerful element of rhetoric that regularly gets abused by politicians and the media. For scientists, bringing emotion into the equation can seem to go against the fundamentals of being a good scientist.
“We’re taught from a very young age to be objective, to only present the cold hard facts, whereas I would argue that just presenting the cold hard facts helps to alienate scientists from society.
Yes, we need to conduct our scientific research very objectively, but when we’re talking about our research I think it’s important to be honest about our passions.”
Illingworth gave the example of climate change researchers expressing concern about the potential impacts of environmental change on society. But it got me thinking about how pathos can be used to effectively communicate physics, especially some of the more foundational research where the human angle is not so obvious.
Particle physics and astrophysics often appeal to a sense of awe and wonder, as well as the aesthetic appreciation of all the beautiful imagery. Quantum physics can appeal to a sense of surprise and novelty at the idea nature can behave in such counter-intuitive ways. While advances in medical physics can evoke a sense of joy and empathy – that this technology might be able to help people back to good health.
the importance of framing, where small changes in how the same information is presented can lead to significantly different audience responses. To illustrate, he gave an example from a 2009 study by Gächter et al. in which only 67% of PhD students registered early for a conference when doing so was presented as a discount, while 93% did so when the emphasis was instead on a penalty fee for late registration.
In a recent article, Sci Comm expert Craig Cormick warned that “One of the most common faults in science communication  is talking to fans of science and thinking you have reached the wider community.” Whilst we often hope to reach a broad public with ScienceCommunication, much of the time we end up simply preaching to the already converted. It is only natural. Audiences are drawn to things that they like, not the opposite.
A 2018 study based on data from Switzerland  attempted to divide up the population according to their perceptions of science. They categorized the different audiences of science communication into four main types. These groups varied from “Sciencephiles, [those] with a strong interest in science”, to “Disengaged, [those] who are not interested in science”. The latter category contained people who, in addition to paying little attention to scientific topics, were also very wary of science too. Elsewhere in the world such as in the USA , similar groups of science-phobes have also been identified.
As a scientist, it is easy to forget that outside of your circle people do not always recognize the profound impact that research has on humanity. The problem, though, is that science affects everyone - not just science fans. Hence, we owe it to the world to step outside the boundaries of the already converted. But, as I’m sure you are already aware, this audience is a much tougher sell. Nevertheless, here are three things you can do to increase your chances of success.
If you want to reach the unconverted, you must first find a way to meet the people you are aiming for. To do that, you need to recognize who you are actually talking about when you decide you want to communicate with the “public”. Once you know who they are, then you can identify where they are and take your Sci Comm to them.
In 2019, the first “On the Moon Again” project saw thousands of people from around the world take their telescopes out onto the streets in 77 countries. Each positioned in different locations - parks, sidewalks, town centers – the idea was to attract passers-by, giving them the chance to look at the moon close up. For many of them, it was a rare opportunity to engage with astronomy, which they surely would have missed had the organizers not brought the telescopes to them.
You may also want to target virtual places where you know your audience gathers. For young people, YouTube is a great place to find them. A recent study carried out by the OCDE  in France showed that 75% of the 1000 15-25 year-olds questioned, visit the online platform daily. As a result, as many as 4 out of 10 watch science videos at least once a week; some of whom are not particularly “fans” of science.
In a world where “impact” and “outcomes” are high priorities, we can often lose sight of the notion that pushing research into the limelight is no easy task. When targeting non-science fans, the mere fact that someone saw your tweet is sometimes a win in itself. Go you! A listener may not walk away from your podcast understanding all the elements in string theory. But hold on, they listened to your podcast all the way through? That is a massive win. They will surely have at least retained some of what you said, and it means they enjoyed themselves too.
Podcasts like The Infinite Monkey Cage, with Brian Cox and Robin Ince do this really well. Anyone can have fun whilst listening and learn some stuff along the way. Scientists have even started to turn their hand to stand-up with projects like the Science Comedy Show. Applying techniques like these doesn’t mean you are lowering your expectations, it simply implies that you are aligning your Sci Comm style with entertainment, which is about as accessible to everyone as you can get.
As passionate lovers of science, we sometimes forget that most people know much less about certain areas than we do. Consequently, it is easy to sound patronizing when talking about your topic of predilection, if only by accident. No one likes the feeling of being spoken down to or having conversation topics thrust upon them over dinner. Nor does anyone enjoy being reminded that you are smarter, wiser or more knowledgeable about an issue than most.
Consequently, it is worth bearing in mind that facts have rights and wrongs. Values, less so. In an article for The Conversation, Prof. John Besley affirms that there are “many things you probably can’t change about your audience through c...  – like an individual’s core values – although these can affect how what you communicate gets interpreted.” That means adapting your approach to the person in front of you, whilst being respectful of their knowledge level and beliefs. Speak up when the time is right, whilst keeping a neutral approach.
Breaking barriers is never without risk of falling on deaf ears. Reaching a truly wide audience means applying yourself in a different way and adapting to who those people are. Take yourself over to their side; go where they are, provide them with entertainment and respect their values.
 One of the most common faults in science communication Nature, Career column 29 January 2020.
 The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Schäfer MS, Füchslin T, Metag J, Kristiansen S, Rauchfleisch A. Public Underst Sci., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517752886.
 Audiences for Science Communication in the United States,John C. Besley Environmental Communication, (2018) 12:8, 1005-1022, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067.
 YouTube, grand pourvoyeur de contenus scientifiques pour les jeunes, https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/youtube-grand-pour....
 What it means to ‘know your audience’ when communicating about science. The Conversation, April 2019, https://theconversation.com/what-it-means-to-know-your-audience-whe....
This blog post is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
Sci-Com in other languages when English ‘is’ the language of Science!
How to communicate science to policy makers
Audiences shown a video about coral reefs had less willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation than when shown a slideshow of texts and photographs. The findings suggest the importance of the type and amount of information used in science communication.
The type and amount of information are critical for science communication. Following the adage, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and the rise of social media, photographs and videos are replacing text. However, regardless of the media, too much information can confuse the public and actually discourage support for a cause.
Information about the reefs was provided as 1) none (NoInfo), 2) 12 slides containing 300 words and 15 photographs (SHORT) , 3) 14 slides containing 700 words and 20 photographs (LONG), or 4) a two-and-a-half minute video with music, 200 words and 19 photographs in 23 slides (VIDEO).
Unexpectedly, the study found that while both SHORT and LONG audiences had higher WTP than the NoInfo audience, the VIDEO audience had less. Audience members for all groups consisted of working-age residents across Japan, with more than 10,000 people participating.
In the SHORT, LONG, and VIDEO information, exactly the same elements were not used. It is unavoidable to some extent but made difficult to interpret the effect of the VIDEO information. Overall, the authors assumed three potential reasons for the lowest WTP in VIDEO audience: 1) insufficiency of textual explanation, 2) lack of a schema, and 3) too long duration time. It would be necessary to pursue effective and efficient amount and type of information to raise awareness of public goods.
"The video was too long and did not summarize the main points well."
Indeed, 25% of the VIDEO audience did not even watch the entire video. In contrast, SHORT and LONG audiences consumed their information within a minute, suggesting a maximum time in which the public's WTP can be recruited. Further, the slides for the two slideshow audiences included a schematic diagram of the topic, which was not included in VIDEO.
The slideshow audiences actively consumed the information, as they could proceed to the next slide by clicking a button. In contrast, VIDEO audience was passive, with the video proceeding without their intervention.
If you missed something in the video, there was no chance to review it. In the slides, you could go forward if you were happy with your understanding,
Takano recommends that for problems related to the environment, science communication should give concerted thought to the length of the information as well as allow the audience to consume the information at their own pace.
The authors recognized three groups in the respondents by statistical analyses (a latent class logit model framework). "High-WTP group", consisting of about 60% of respondents, had a willingness to pay 6,521–8,288 Japanese Yen (100 JPY is about 1 USD) per person per year. "Low-WTP group," comprising about 30% of the respondents, were willing to pay 196-245 JPY. "No-additional-conservation group," consisting of about 10% of the respondents, were not willing to pay any amount. A respondent of the high-WTP group was more likely to be a woman, older, and had a higher income level compared with the no-more-conservation group (the reference group). A respondent of the low-WTP group was more likely to be a woman, compared to the reference group.
Ecosystem Services, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101166