Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences

Abstract. Geoscience communication is becoming increasingly important as climate change increases the occurrence of natural hazards around the world. Few geoscientists are trained in effective science communication, and awareness of the formal science communication literature is also low. This can be challenging when interacting with journalists on a powerful medium like TV. To provide geoscience communicators with background knowledge on effective science communication on television, we reviewed relevant theory in the context of geosciences and discuss six major themes: scientist motivation, target audience, narratives and storytelling, jargon and information transfer, relationship between scientists and journalists, and stereotypes of scientists on TV. We illustrate each theme with a case study of geosciences on TV and discuss relevant science communication literature. We then highlight how this literature applies to the geosciences and identify knowledge gaps related to science communication in the geosciences. As TV offers a unique opportunity to reach many viewers, we hope this review can not only positively contribute to effective geoscience communication but also to the wider geoscience debate in society.

[1]  A. M. Dijkstra,et al.  The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship , 2015 .

[2]  S. Hancocks.  Having a voice , 2015, BDJ.

[3]  Michael F. Dahlstrom.  Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Julie S. Downs,et al.  Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology , 2014 .

[6]  Gultekin Cakmakci,et al.  Global spread of science communication , 2014 .

[7]  S. Kotlarski,et al.  21st century climate change in the European Alps--a review. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[8]  Jesus Rodriguez.  Skills Outlook 2013: first results from the survey of adult skills , 2014 .

[9]  M. Moritz,et al.  Climate change‐induced shifts in fire for Mediterranean ecosystems , 2013 .

[10]  A. Jordán,et al.  Soil water repellency: Origin, assessment and geomorphological consequences , 2013 .

[11]  S. Kanae,et al.  Global flood risk under climate change , 2013 .

[12]  Hans Peter Peters,et al.  Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Iain S. Stewart,et al.  Earth stories: context and narrative in the communication of popular geoscience , 2013 .

[14]  C. Wien.  Commentators on daily news or communicators of scholarly achievements? The role of researchers in Danish news media , 2014 .

[15]  Gregory N. Mandel,et al.  The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks , 2012 .

[16]  S. Dunwoody.  How valuable is formal science training to science journalists , 2012 .

[17]  Michael Morgan,et al.  Science on Television in the 21st Century , 2011, Commun. Res..

[18]  Susan Joy Hassol,et al.  Communicating the science of climate change , 2011 .

[19]  Sapna Cheryan,et al.  Do Female and Male Role Models Who Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women’s Anticipated Success in STEM? , 2011 .

[20]  Erik Albæk.  The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism , 2011 .

[21]  J. Besley,et al.  What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate , 2011 .

[22]  Joachim Allgaier.  Who is having a voice? Journalists’ selection of sources in a creationism controversy in the UK press , 2011 .

[23]  D. Liverman,et al.  Communicating Environmental Geoscience - An International Survey , 2011 .

[24]  Sonsoles Sánchez-Reyes Peñamaría.  The Common European Framework of Reference , 2011 .

[25]  medolbec.  Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change , 2010 .

[26]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  G. Hein.  Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits , 2009 .

[28]  M. Holmes,et al.  Gender imbalance in US geoscience academia , 2008 .

[29]  R. E. Ward.  Good and bad practice in the communication of uncertainties associated with the relationship between climate change and weather-related natural disasters , 2008 .

[30]  Ted Nield,et al.  Altered priorities ahead; or how to develop fruitful relationships with the media , 2008 .

[31]  D. Liverman.  Environmental geoscience; communication challenges , 2008 .

[32]  David G. E. Liverman,et al.  Communicating Environmental Geoscience , 2008 .

[33]  M. Boykoff,et al.  Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change , 2008 .

[34]  Dean Schillinger,et al.  Babel babble: physicians' use of unclarified medical jargon with patients. , 2007, American journal of health behavior.

[35]  Linda G. Kimmel,et al.  Adult Science Learning from Local Television Newscasts , 2006 .

[36]  B. Nerlich,et al.  Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: the case of foot and mouth science , 2006 .

[37]  Katy Freeborough,et al.  A guide to the communication of geohazards information to the public , 2006 .

[38]  N. Allum,et al.  Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes , 2004 .

[39]  L. Frewer.  The public and effective risk communication. , 2003, Toxicology letters.

[40]  Horst Po¨ttker.  News and its communicative quality: the inverted pyramid—when and why did it appear? , 2003 .

[41]  Koshi Dhingra.  Thinking about Television Science: How Students Understand the Nature of Science from Different Program Genres. , 2003 .

[42]  Kevin D. Finson.  Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know After Fifty Years of Drawings , 2002 .

[43]  Richard Betts,et al.  The science of climate change , 2010 .

[44]  G. Boiarsky,et al.  Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis , 2001 .

[45]  E. Ytreberg.  Moving out of the Inverted Pyramid: narratives and descriptions in television news , 2001 .

[46]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[47]  Jon Franklin,et al.  Writing for story : craft secrets of dramatic nonfiction by a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner , 1994 .

[48]  D. Horne,et al.  Soil Water Repellency , 1992 .

[49]  D. Phillips,et al.  Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[50]  M. Pitts,et al.  The understanding of common health terms by doctors, nurses and patients. , 1991, Social science & medicine.

[51]  D. Chambers,et al.  Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw‐a‐scientist test , 1983 .

[52]  David Fishlock,et al.  Science and the media , 1976, Nature.

[53]  C. M. Boyle.  Difference Between Patients?? and Doctors?? Interpretation of Some Common Medical Terms , 1970 .

[54]  C. M. Boyle.  Difference Between Patients' and Doctors' Interpretation of Some Common Medical Terms , 1970, British medical journal.

[55]  M. Mead,et al.  Image of the Scientist among High-School Students: A Pilot Study. , 1957, Science.