Petro Poutanen, M.Soc.Sci, researcher University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/pkpoutan  

Media Instructions for Scientists

Science and Media Organized by HeLiSci

Biomedicum 1, lecture hall 3, Meilahti October 3, 2012

Are multivitamins killing older women?

Actually, what they were meaning was that supplements do little or even worse, if one

This is the part of the message that the journalists will

interpret as the peaknews story

Press release Journal article

The most important

thing!

Conclusion

Empirical part

Implications!

Background!

Blaah, blaah (theoretical

background)

Intro: setting the problem

How to make the uncertainty related to the scientific knowledge into the communication with

media? (and at the same time be attractive)

(Science) communication fallacies

just PR: writing good press releases, etc

Fallacy #1

not conversations and relationships with others and managing those relationships.

(see e.g. Coombs & Holladay, 2007)

Who are your stakeholders?

Journals Publishers

Traditional media

Supervisor

University

Social media

Friends & family

Colleagues

Citizens

You

Investors

Conferences

Academic organizations

Society Industry

Journalists are doing everything to mess up your results and confuse

your expert opinion

Fallacy #2

Three typical cases 1.

(usually 2) experts having opposite opinions 2. A scientific study as a source

PR material or short comments would do it all 3. A full-scale feature article

make an interview

What you write is what you really mean and everybody who can read it will understand it

Fallacy #3

What particular words mean to scientists may not mean to someone else Asociation statistical association? =

association making no causal claims? = just a weird or link etc

We need to take into account our audiencesbackground knowledge and experiences and adapt our message so that people can understand us

(see also: Richmond & McCroskey & McCroskey, 2005)

The content of the communication is where it stands

Fallacy #4

Watching TV is Related to Math Ability

McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008)

How we say

How we act

What we say

Equally Important!

Way of communicating

The more communication, the better

Fallacy #5

PR is not just a matter of volume (although it matters as well)

Context of the story matters should I dress my story today

Significant results are always significant

Who would be interested in big data & super processors

Daily agenda may do a lot! was thinking about releasing my historical

study on the WW2 in the day of anniversary

There are times when it is best to break down the communication

Fallacy #6

Science is by definition involved in big crisis and changes There is no easy, nor quick answers on complex issues However, a scientific norm of refraining from speculative statements would be interpreted as contemptuous

If science is to be considered as socially useful, scientists must be ready to interact with those outside of the academia

Social media is for geeks

Fallacy #7

Going real (!) people out there

Blogging (or other means of communicating interactively online) is a good way science

Opening up the manufacture process Lay people at target Placing studies in context of the prior work Correcting science journalism Allowing comments, questions and feedback -> dialogue! Making science politics

(Wilkins, 2008) Building your own presence as a bundit, expert, scientific thinker, etc. Making notes of your own work and enhancing your personal learning process

Blogging allows cultural mashups!

(Wilkins, 2008)

Some people are just natural communicators

Fallacy #8

Yes Communication is a learned ability; skills are acquired through experiences and education

Personality and temperament influencing on communication styles may be determined

and NO

(Richmond & McCroskey & McCroskey, 2005)

Thank you! Petro Poutanen (M.Soc.Sci, Phd. Student, researcher) (University of Helsinki, Department of social research) petro.poutanen@helsinki.fi @poutapepe www.organisaatioviestinta.fi http://blogs.helsinki.fi/pkpoutan/

References Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343 52. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017 Poutanen, P. K. (2012). Unwilling self-marketers a small media guide for scientists. An blog article: http://blogs.helsinki.fi/pkpoutan/?p=391 Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2005). Organizational Communication for Survival: Making Work, Work (3rd ed., pp. 16 31). Allyn & Bacon. Wiio, O. A. (1978). Wiion lait ja vähän muidenkin. Espoo: Weilin + Göös. Wilkins, J. S. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in ecology & evolution, 23(8), 411 3.