Media Representations of Science during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of News and Social Media on the Island of Ireland

COVID-19 is arguably the most critical science communication challenge of a generation, yet comes in the wake of a purported populist turn against scientific expertise in western societies. This study advances understanding of science–society relations during the COVID-19 pandemic by analysing how science was represented in news and social media coverage of COVID-19 on the island of Ireland. Thematic analysis was performed on a dataset comprising 952 news articles and 603 tweets published between 1 January and 31 May 2020. Three themes characterised the range of meanings attached to science: ‘Defining science: Its subjects, practice and process’, ‘Relating to science: Between veneration and suspicion’ and ‘Using science: As solution, policy and rhetoric’. The analysis suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic represented a platform to highlight the value, philosophy, process and day-to-day activity of scientific research. However, the study also identified risks the pandemic might pose to science communication, including feeding public alienation by disparaging lay understandings, reinforcing stereotypical images of scientists, and amplifying the politicisation of scientific statements.

[1]  Achim Goerres,et al.  Public Attitudes , 2021, The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State.

[2]  Gemma A. Williams,et al.  A comparison of 2020 health policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America , 2021, Health Policy.

[3]  M. Dempster,et al.  Bordering on crisis: A qualitative analysis of focus group, social media, and news media perspectives on the Republic of Ireland-Northern Ireland border during the ‘first wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemic , 2021, Social Science & Medicine.

[4]  M. Dempster,et al.  Obstacles to Public Health that even Pandemics cannot Overcome: The Politics of Covid-19 on the Island of Ireland , 2021, Irish Studies in International Affairs.

[5]  O. McBride,et al.  Resistance to COVID-19 vaccination has increased in Ireland and the United Kingdom during the pandemic , 2021, Public Health.

[6]  Dorota Domalewska,et al.  An analysis of COVID-19 economic measures and attitudes: evidence from social media mining , 2021, J. Big Data.

[7]  M. Dempster,et al.  Study protocol for the COvid-19 Toolbox for All IslaNd (CONTAIN) project: A cross-border analysis in Ireland to disentangle psychological, behavioural, media and governmental responses to COVID-19 , 2020, HRB Open Research.

[8]  M. Hornsey.  Why Facts Are Not Enough: Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science , 2020 .

[9]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Inoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19 , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[10]  Lynne Peeples.  Face masks: what the data say , 2020, Nature.

[11]  S. Kreps,et al.  Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, Science Advances.

[12]  The Lancet.  COVID-19: a stress test for trust in science , 2020, The Lancet.

[13]  L. Glynn,et al.  The COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland: An overview of the health service and economic policy response , 2020, Health Policy and Technology.

[14]  S. Soroka,et al.  Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage , 2020, Science communication.

[15]  Virginia Braun,et al.  One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? , 2020, Qualitative Research in Psychology.

[16]  Abrar Ahmad Chughtai,et al.  COVID-19–Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis , 2020, The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene.

[17]  A. Bredenoord,et al.  From deficit to dialogue in science communication , 2020, EMBO reports.

[18]  John H. Evans,et al.  Who Doesn’t Trust Fauci? The Public’s Belief in the Expertise and Shared Values of Scientists in the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2020 .

[19]  Michael Quayle,et al.  Mapping public health responses with attitude networks: the emergence of opinion‐based groups in the UK’s early COVID‐19 response phase , 2020, The British journal of social psychology.

[20]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  Cultural orientation, power, belief in conspiracy theories, and intentions to reduce the spread of COVID‐19 , 2020, The British journal of social psychology.

[21]  D. Jolley,et al.  Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID‐19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence , 2020, The British journal of social psychology.

[22]  N. Kawakami,et al.  Long-lasting effects of distrust in government and science on mental health eight years after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. , 2020, Social science & medicine.

[23]  B. Duffy,et al.  Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency , 2020, Psychological Medicine.

[24]  Barry Eichengreen,et al.  Revenge of the experts: Will COVID-19 renew or diminish public trust in science? , 2020, Journal of Public Economics.

[25]  J. Agley.  Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, Public Health.

[26]  Cristina M. Pulido,et al.  COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information , 2020, International Sociology.

[27]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis , 2020, BMJ.

[28]  David G. Rand,et al.  Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention , 2020, Psychological science.

[29]  A. L. Schmidt,et al.  The COVID-19 social media infodemic , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[30]  Jabra Zarka,et al.  Coronavirus Goes Viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 Misinformation Epidemic on Twitter , 2020, Cureus.

[31]  S. Omer,et al.  Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak , 2020, medRxiv.

[32]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Scientific communication in a post-truth society , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  H. Marshall,et al.  Post-Truth Politics in the UK's Brexit Referendum , 2018, New Perspectives.

[34]  M. McKinnon,et al.  ‘Human’ or ‘objective’ faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of scientists in the media , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[35]  G. Scally.  Scoping Inquiry into the CervicalCheck Screening Programme , 2018 .

[36]  J. Besley,et al.  Scientists’ views about communication objectives , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[37]  Sinan Aral,et al.  The spread of true and false news online , 2018, Science.

[38]  S. Fuller.  Brexit as the unlikely leading edge of the anti-expert revolution , 2017 .

[39]  Y. Ortiz-Martínez,et al.  Yellow fever outbreaks and Twitter: Rumors and misinformation. , 2017, American journal of infection control.

[40]  Robert J. Brulle,et al.  Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013 , 2017 .

[41]  J. Newman,et al.  ‘People in this country have had enough of experts’: Brexit and the paradoxes of populism , 2017 .

[42]  M. Lehmkuhl,et al.  Constructing (un-)certainty: An exploration of journalistic decision-making in the reporting of neuroscience , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[43]  Benjamin K. Johnson,et al.  Science Exemplars in the Eye of the Beholder , 2015 .

[44]  H. Joffe,et al.  How the Public Engages With Brain Optimization , 2015, Science, technology & human values.

[45]  H. Joffe,et al.  Gender on the Brain: A Case Study of Science Communication in the New Media Environment , 2014, PloS one.

[46]  Elia Gabarron,et al.  Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: a dangerous combination? , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[47]  H. Joffe,et al.  Social Representations of Brain Research , 2014 .

[48]  Bridget C. O’Brien,et al.  Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations , 2014, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[49]  Els Rommes,et al.  From the wizard to the doubter: Prototypes of scientists and engineers in fiction and non-fiction media aimed at Dutch children and teenagers , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[50]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  How scientists view the public, the media and the political process , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[51]  Torsten Wilholt.  Epistemic Trust in Science , 2013, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[52]  H. Joffe,et al.  How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[53]  Vasilia Christidou,et al.  Visual self-images of scientists and science in Greece , 2013, Public understanding of science.

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

[55]  Tateo Arimoto,et al.  Rebuilding Public Trust in Science for Policy-Making , 2012, Science.

[56]  G. Gauchat.  Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere , 2012 .

[57]  G. Gauchat.  The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[58]  Sapna Cheryan,et al.  When Do Female Role Models Benefit Women? The Importance of Differentiating Recruitment From Retention in STEM , 2011 .

[59]  H. Joffe.  Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases: are changes afoot? , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[60]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[61]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence , 2009 .

[62]  Richard Tutton,et al.  Shifting Subject Positions , 2007 .

[63]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[64]  T. Eyck,et al.  The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? , 2005 .

[65]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press , 2005 .

[66]  R. Haynes,et al.  From Alchemy to Artificial Intelligence: Stereotypes of the Scientist in Western Literature , 2003 .

[67]  P. Weingart,et al.  Of Power Maniacs and Unethical Geniuses: Science and Scientists in Fiction Film , 2003 .

[68]  W. Wagner,et al.  Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[69]  Hyman Field,et al.  Public understanding of science versus public understanding of research , 2001 .

[70]  Hannot Rodríguez,et al.  The World Risk Society , 2001 .

[71]  L. Lilley,et al.  A dangerous combination. , 1998, The American journal of nursing.

[72]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity , 1993 .

[73]  A. Giddens.  Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age , 1992, The New Social Theory Reader.

[74]  R. Evans.  European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. , 2014, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[75]  T. Buchanan,et al.  Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research , 2013 .

[76]  Toby A. Ten Eyck.  The media and the public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? , 2005, Public understanding of science.

[77]  J. Horgan.  Irish Media: A Critical History since 1922 , 2001 .

[78]  J. Nagelkerk,et al.  Policy making. , 1994, The Journal of nursing administration.

[79]  J. Habermas,et al.  Jurgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader , 1989 .