When we are conducting research as science communicators, a lot of our decisions come down to who and what we trust. What sources can we rely on for fact and who can we rely on for opinion? In reality, faced with the pressures of time, as communicators we typically rely on a limited range of sources – the likes of peer reviewed papers, the scientists directly involved with the research (or at least someone in their field) and possibly the odd press release. But how many of us give conscious thought in our working day to what we trust and why? How often are we open to ideas, perspectives and knowledge that come from outside our usual circle of trust?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s questions such as these that are at the heart of the latest report from the European Commission-funded RETHINK project<\/a>. This report synthesised research we had already done to consider the \u2018openness\u2019 and \u2018reflexivity\u2019 of science communicators and also of citizens; those who read, watch or listen to what we create. How open are we to a wide range of information, ideas and perspectives? And how reflexive are we, consciously thinking about where we search for information, how that influences the information we find and then how choices we make influence what we write or create?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A guiding principle of RETHINK is that openness and reflexivity on the part of communicators, citizens, scientists and everyone else for that matter are a good thing \u2013 helping to create a more effective exchange of ideas and knowledge. On their own, all of these principles sound straightforward. Source information you can trust. Be open. Be reflexive. It\u2019s just that when you put all those ideas together, things start to get complicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A survey of the working practices of science communicators<\/a> we conducted earlier in RETHINK shows that academic journals, university press releases and personal contacts are consulted widely during research. After all, these are sources we can trust for the most part. But if this is what we always do as communicators, often without conscious thought (or reflexivity) it limits the opportunities for readers, viewers and listeners to be exposed to different information and perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So it is in the implementation of these principles that things get challenging. How prepared are we as communicators to step outside our research comfort zone and take information from sources, from people, we wouldn\u2019t usually consult? When would we want to do this? Are there circumstances when it\u2019s more appropriate than others? After all, openness on the part of science communicators doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that we\u2019ll simply report information and opinions from anyone. There\u2019s a widely circulated quote (that\u2019s been attributed to several people) that may apply here: \u201cLet us keep our minds open\u2026but don\u2019t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our new RETHINK report also explores how open and reflexive citizens are when they are interpreting information about science. Specifically, it looked at their \u2018sensemaking practices\u2019 in relation to coronavirus \u2013 sensemaking being the process by which we develop an understanding of something complex. It showed that there is some evidence of openness, with people consulting a range of newspapers and websites to help them triangulate information and understand what\u2019s happening. But in many instances, citizens\u2019 sensemaking practices are understandably heavily influenced by their context \u2013 they speak with friends, family, find information from online social media groups they\u2019re part of and have a limited range of online sources they trust. They are also unlikely to shift from pre-existing beliefs during this sensemaking process. In other words, some sensemaking is not particularly open, or particularly reflexive for that matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what we can do about all this? How can we as science communicators become open and reflexive in what we do in a way that\u2019s compatible with the need to source trustworthy information? And is there anything we can do to encourage others, those who watch, listen or read what we create, to be open and reflexive too? Let\u2019s have an (open and reflexive) conversation about this \u2013 tweet us at @SciCommsUWE<\/a> @RETHINKscicomm<\/a> with your thoughts and ideas.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Photo credit: Marten Newhall, Unsplash Words: Andy Ridgway When I started teaching science writing after spending years as a journalist, I wanted to share my experience, my way of doing things, in the classroom. But I quickly struck upon a problem. What did I actually do? How did I find and research stories? How did … Continue reading “How open are we as science communicators?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":5753,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,16,3,4],"tags":[31,619,617,449,405,301,155,618,620],"class_list":["post-5752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faculty-of-health-and-applied-sciences","category-research-projects","category-science-communication","category-science-communication-unit","tag-andy-ridgway","tag-openness","tag-reflexivity","tag-rethink","tag-science-communicators","tag-science-writing","tag-science-writing-journalism","tag-sensemaking","tag-sensemaking-practices"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5752"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5883,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5752\/revisions\/5883"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2020\/07\/RETHINKlogo.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/science-communication\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2020\/04\/Question.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n