In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a study entitled Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. In the article, Wakefield and his co-authors argue that there is a link between vaccination for mumps, measles and rubella, and autism in children. Years later, it became known that Wakefield had received GBP 480,000 for the results of the study and had concealed this. Today, the study has been withdrawn and Wakefield is no longer a doctor. However, the content of the “study”, which was not a study, still has an impact today.
Withdrawing a paper. Is that possible?
Articles are withdrawn for various reasons. The withholding and concealment of funding bodies or the concealment of conflicts of interest is one of them. The most common reason is honest mistakes in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. As with any other work, these can also happen in research. However, there is also deliberate data manipulation and plagiarism. AI could play a role in the future. People whol request the retracttion of articles are authors who notice inadequacies in their own work (as in the case of Shaawna Williams in The Scientist), colleagues who notice errors, and editors who become aware of inadequacies during public discussions.
With the new verifiability and the demand on publishers to fulfil their obligations, the career pressure on the credibility of scientists has also increased. The Scientist publishes an annual list of the most important retractions in the sciences (2021, 2022). The community has also become more aware and helpful – a “stronger systems hypothesis” advocated by Danielle Fanelli. Titles with particularly spectacular announcements have recently had to face scrutiny. Following the announcement by Ranga Dias et al. that they had found the first superconductor as a solid at room temperature, the article was first picked apart in the preprint within a few months and then withdrawn by the publisher in 2023 at the request of the co-authors. It was Dias’s third retraction, and the first to make waves in the media: Science reported it, the New York Times reported it, the Wall Street Journal reported it. This tarnishes the credibility of individuals, but strengthens science and its community.
It is normal to make mistakes. It is not surprising that fraud occurs. In addition to ethics and morality, there is also competition, careers and unfair means in science. What is not right, and highly problematic for society, is the long wait and lack of information for those who have cited a retracted paper and have not noticed the errors or fraud. Should retracted papers be deleted or made available to posterity in a labelled form?
As a result, there is still room for improvement in retraction processes. Ivan Heibi and Silvio Peroni, for example, in their article published in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, analyse the retraction notice and find that there are serious differences in both content and metadata. Furthermore, according to the authors, retractions are difficult to find because of their negative connotations. It is therefore advisable to continue to work not only on the review of articles and their content, but also on the approach and publicity. This is a call not only to publishers and the research industry, but also to all those who support the research industry in publishing and disseminating knowledge that is considered reliable.
Immersive experiences are very popular as a tool for science communication. Do they keep their promises?
When I was ten or eleven years old, I visited an exhibition about street children in the Global South with my school. We had previously read the book “Das Tor zum Garten der Zambranos” by Gudrun Pausewang in German class, which is about the friendship between a street boy and the son of a rich family who swap roles. The exhibition perfectly complemented the book reading, as it picked up on many of the themes. The exhibition took visitors to Latin American, Asian and African contexts, complete with reconstructed street scenes and matching artifacts. And visitors experienced the exhibition in uncomfortable improvised slippers made from car tires, as street children often wear.
A quarter of a century later, I still remember this exhibition. But why? My guess: the combination of reading a book, a well-made exhibition and the very tactile car tire slippers was memorable enough to be remembered to this day. An immersive experience of white norther privilege, completely undigital and analog. Today, decades later, immersion is usually thought of as an interweaving of analog and digital experiences. There are numerous specialized providers who are also active in science communication. Immersive virtual reality offers huge potential for communicating science and research. The SciComm portal impact.science therefore sees virtual reality experiences as number 1 of the top 10 science communication trends of 2024. But what exactly are immersive experiences?
Immersion: what?
The Immersive Experience Institute, a kind of think tank from California, provides useful definitions here. Those who want to delve deeper into the question of what constitutes immersive experiences and what their potential and qualities are can find peer-reviewed answers in the Journal of Network and Computer Applications. And those interested in the practical implementation level can, for example, take a look at the Copenhagen-based company Khora, with whom Oikoplus recently collaborated on an EU project submission. The creative team at Khora develops virtual reality and augmented reality for a wide range of applications. The projects in which Khora is involved show how virtual reality is also being used and researched in EU-funded research and innovation projects. For example, in the Horizon Europe project XTREME (Mixed Reality Environment for Immersive Experience of Art and Culture), which was launched in January 2024. In this project, a consortium of 14 partners is researching and developing mixed reality (MR) solutions for experiencing art.
Of course, many applications of virtual reality, augmented reality and immersive technologies are resource-intensive and costly. As a result, their field of application is often of a commercial nature. One example of this is the exhibition “Van Gogh – The Immersive Experience”, which has been successful around the world. But even here, knowledge is conveyed and brought to life.
What are the communicative benefits of immersion?
But do immersive experiences with the support of modern VR and AR technology also lead to measurable communication success? Well, the answer is not quite that simple. Research into this is being conducted selectively: Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz at the University of Missouri, for example, has investigated the effectiveness of VR as a science communication tool. However, for a very specific use case. In an article on LinkedIn, the company Imagineerium, a British provider of technology-supported immersive experiences, writes: “There has not been a great deal of research done on human psychology when exercised in an immersive experience, but some scientists and psychologists are beginning to look into it more as VR grows from strength to strength and immersion is starting to be used in learning experiences.”
It is probably not easy to say whether digital, immersive experiences are a useful communication tool. As is so often the case, it all depends. In any case, they expand the toolbox of science communication. Virtual reality and augmented reality are certainly a useful tool for many a communicative message and many a target group. But not in any case, for everyone, everywhere.
The immersive exhibition I visited as a boy, which was completely analog and which I visited in the late 90s, is a good example of this. I remember the experience of the exhibition, but less about the actual exhibition content. But maybe that was just too long ago.
In this reading list, we want to look at the communication methods think tanks use to bring science into politics.
Professional providers of science communication–whether embedded in research institutions, as companies such as Oikoplus, or think tanks–aim to communicate research results clearly and transparently and make knowledge available for public debate. The target audience for this is diverse. One relevant target group that is usually among the declared addressees of science communication is political decision-makers. In this Reading List, we therefore want to focus on communication methods aimed at policymakers and take a look at think tanks.
Policy oriented think tank work, as stated by Annapoorna Ravichander results in ‘sets of guidelines to help achieve outcomes in a reasonable manner’. They are different from processes and actions. Policies are broad and set a certain direction. While science communication may not have a direct policymaking ambition, it can play a significant role in shaping policy debates, informing decision makers and influencing the development of ideas. And there are methods which can be applied in order to achieve policy influence.
The most central way for science communicators to achieve policy impact, is providing policymakers with expertise and consultation. Science communicators can place researchers as consultants to government agencies, providing input in the policy-making process. There is, however, a challenge in this method. According to Andrea Baertl Helguero, in order to have influence on policy through consulting, think tanks should maintain a strong intellectual transparency and ensure their research is diligent and reliable.
Another crucial method to achieve policy influence is networking. It’s a classic method used by think tanks. As Alejandro Chaufen explains in an article for Forbes, networking allows think tanks to create platforms where ideas can be exchanged and a consensus can be build around policy agendas.
A question of format
An established format for presenting research findings to policymakers are policy briefing papers. A policy brief is a concise, well-researched and informed summary of a particular issue, the policy options for addressing that issue and some recommendations. These briefs are an important tool for presenting research findings and recommendations based on them to a non-scientific audience to support decision-making. Policy briefs allow science communicators to communicate their research and findings in a way that conveys the urgency of the issue and is accessible to people with different levels of knowledge. However, here too, research institutions should ensure transparency and remain independent and transparent when presenting problems, options or proposed solutions.
When policy impact is the declared goal of science communication, this generates a need for anticipatory methods such as foresight and forecasting, which can help inform policy action and increase societal resilience in a sustainable way. Science communicators should take a long-term view of policy change, work over-time and build momentum for the topics and ideas they work with. Mark Halle, for International Institute for Sustainable Development, states that ‘think tanks cannot afford vagueness […]’. They must create outputs, which are clear, targeted, and incorporate a vision of long-term, positive effects.
This text hopefully serves as a good introduction to the question of what can be learned from think tanks when it comes to achieving political impact through science communication. And this leads almost inevitably to the question of how to measure the impact of research in the first place. Fortunately, we have already dealt with this in other Readings Lists, e.g here.
What can we learn from science communication? A reading list based on the experiences of the first five years of Oikoplus.
Relevant target groups may be small.
The success of communication is often measured in reach. Reach is also a hard currency in communication for research and innovation projects. However, science dissemination is often very specific, and it’s small target groups that are particularly relevant for successful project communication. In our Domino-E project, for example, one of the most relevant target groups is the small group of people involved in programming satellite missions for earth observation purposes. This target group is not only small, but it is also not easy to identify the communication channels through which it can be reached. However, the content for this target group is specific enough to be able to assume that the target group will find the relevant content as long as it is easy to find. So we decided to use YouTube as a channel.
Simplifying does not have to mean trivializing.
The closer you zoom in on a topic, the bigger it becomes. Many topics and issues appear straightforward at first glance, and only on closer inspection do their complexity, depth and multi-layered nature become apparent. Nevertheless, it is not wrong to take a superficial look at a topic first and only delve deeper in the second step. For experts who are extremely well-versed in a particular subject area, it is often difficult to allow this superficial view. They are too aware of the aspects that only become apparent on closer inspection. And that’s why the superficial view feels like a simplification to them, and often like a trivialization. It is important to allow simplification. But it should be correct. Our REACT project, which deals with the control of pest insect species, can be summarized easily: Insects are sterilized so that they can mate with wild-type insects in the wild without producing offspring. The insect population shrinks in the medium term due to the lack of offspring. In this way, agriculture is protected from the pest. Technically, this method involves a great deal of effort. Nevertheless, we have tried to explain the project in as simple and understandable terms as possible.
Science communication aims to make research accessible to the general public. This broad public can therefore be found as a target group in the applications and descriptions of many research and innovation projects. However, from a communication perspective, the general public hardly exists. Addressing the public as a whole is damn difficult, or rather: it is impossible. Developing key messages and storytelling approaches automatically involves a selection of target groups. Not everyone finds everything interesting. And if you manage to meet the interests of as many different target groups as possible, that’s already a great communication success. To gain an understanding of how diverse the target groups of our communication in research and innovation projects can be, we have our project partners develop personas in interactive workshops at the start of a project. These are fictitious people who we then use to jointly consider what needs to be done to reach them through our project communication: with which messages, on which channels, when, why, and with what goal in mind? It usually becomes clear quite quickly that the general public is only an auxiliary term that indicates that each project can address many different target groups.
Never underestimate how exciting any topic can be.
How interesting a topic is sometimes isn’t obvious at first glance. No wonder: not every topic can be perceived as equally exciting, and it always depends on how a topic is presented. You could say that it is the job of science communicators like Oikoplus to ensure that a topic arouses the interest of as many people as possible. That is true. But even those who do science communication, first have to find their very own interest in a topic. This does not always happen straight away, which is why it is part of our work to actively seek out approaches to any given topic in which we recognize the potential to tell a story to a specific target group. We therefore force ourselves to be curious and to think empathetically about what the thematic appeal could be for other target groups. Sooner or later, the penny will drop – and then communication will be much easier.
5. Even those who conduct the most exciting research don’t always like to talk about it.
As a journalist, you sometimes have to worm the information you want to convey out of the interviewees. You have to keep asking questions because the interest in conveying information tends to be one-sided. If you’re not doing journalism, but science communication on behalf of science, then this can also happen. This can be surprising, as one would think that the dissemination of information is in the interest of both the scientists and the public and that in the role of the communicator, one only has to do the mediation work. In practice, however, we have often found that researchers sometimes do not always like to talk about their work and that even basic explanations have to be laboriously elicited from them. There is no simple solution to this problem. It is important to build trust, present your communication work as transparently as possible, and create environments in which insights into scientific work are possible. In some cases, this can be a large video shoot in a laboratory with artificial lighting and large camera equipment, and in other cases, it can be a personal one-on-one conversation. In any case, science communication does not happen by itself, even when the most exciting research is communicated.
In science, quality is more important than quantity. In communication, this is sometimes not so clear. When the objectives for project communication are laid down in the applications for research projects, the corresponding KPIs are often set high. After all, a proposal submission should express high ambitions. If it is approved, you then realize that the goals may have been set too high and that publications, press releases, website articles, social media postings, photos, videos, and other project dissemination content can be produced, but that it is not easy to maintain your high-quality standards. High-quality content takes time. In our video series for the REACT project, for example, we try to explain the research project as comprehensively as possible and at the same time as clearly as possible. The first of the explanatory videos can be found here. Producing such videos requires a long and detailed exchange with the researchers involved. This is why dozens of such videos cannot be produced in a project like REACT. This should also be expressed in the objectives at the start of the project.
7. Speed is not everything in communication.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. And also, you have to take time in science communication. In other areas of communication, in journalism, PR, and advertising, speed is often a key quality feature. And there are also moments in science communication when it is important to react quickly. But in general, science communication follows the pace of science. For press relations, for example, this means that you can free yourself a little from the temporal logic of media operations. A research topic does not lose its relevance simply because it is no longer news. If, for example, a research paper was published several weeks ago, it is not pointless from the outset to draw journalists’ attention to the paper. This is a major difference between science communication and some other fields of professional communication work.
You don’t have to fully understand what you are communicating.
At Oikoplus, we often benefit from the fact that we approach the research projects that we support in terms of communication as laypeople. The fact that we are not experts in urban development, archaeology, crop protection, satellite technology, or the energy transition has helped us to ask the right questions in the projects that we implement in these areas. After all, the fact that we don’t immediately understand the methods and innovations of our projects is something we have in common with our target groups. This is not to be understood as a hymn to trivialization. Of course, it helps to familiarize yourself with the topics that are being communicated. But you also don’t have to be afraid to bring your expertise, namely communications expertise, to projects that you initially have no idea about. Don’t be afraid of rocket science. Even rocket scientists are sometimes dependent on communication experts.
Think globally, act globally.
To make an abstract topic accessible, it is often linked to a manageable aspect of people’s everyday lives. This is a common method in journalism. To draw attention to the consequences of global climate change, for example, changes to the ecosystem are described at a local level. This creates relatability. We wrote about this in Reading List #010. So far, so useful. In our communication for European and global research projects, we sometimes lack this local or everyday level. We design communication for international target groups – after all, research is international too. The slogan “think globally, act locally” therefore often becomes “think globally, act globally” for us. In concrete terms, this means that science communication cannot always respond to the needs of different local target groups. This is where translations into dozens of different languages and a lack of mobility alone can lead to failure. Science communication takes place on an international level. As a science communicator, you often have to trust that the topics you are communicating about will find their target groups – not the other way around.
10. Curiosity is the best driver of communication.
If you ask us at Oikoplus what drives us, the answer is easy. It is curiosity. In German, the word for it (Neugier) is derived from the greed (Gier) for something new (Neu). We took a critical look at this in one of our last reading lists. We understand curiosity as the constant interest in new experiences, insights, and perspectives. We see it as a great privilege of science communication that we can constantly learn something new in our work, and it even largely consists of this. We enjoy doing it.
In this Oikoplus Reading List we present good reads from the web touching on the question of language in science. Language, understood quite explicitly and rather abstractly.
The favour of the mother tongue
At Oikoplus, the working language in all our projects is English. When we meet contacts in our work with whom we can speak in our native languages (German, Italian, Polish, Romanian), we are always happy. Because honestly, working permanently in foreign languages can be exhausting sometimes. For people working in science and research, it is therefore a great starting advantage if their mother tongue is English. So far, so banal. It is less banal, however, to quantify how great the price is paid by all those whose mother tongue is not English, of all languages. A study by Tatsuya Amano et al. aims to do just that:
„By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English.”
A mathematical narrative
English is a standard language of science. Mathematics is one too. As an important tool, mathematical principles and concepts help in understanding the world. Patrick Honner gives a very clear example of this in the highly recommended Quanta Magazine. In it, he describes how networks can be described mathematically. And that in the form of a quest to puzzle over.
When narratives disappear
Mathematics describes the world in a strictly formal way. That is its essence and its task. The world can be described less formally in narratives and legends. Just as mathematics looks back on thousands of years of history, which, interestingly enough, is better told as a narrative, there are countless legends and narratives that are ancient and whose future is threatened. And this is because the languages in which they are told are at stake of extinction. Alexandra Aikhenvald explores how the loss of linguistic diversity is threatened by the extinction of indigenous languages worldwide, and why the loss of stories, legends and myths that comes with it is a problem.
We hope we have found the right language in this Reading List, and that in our forays through the internet over the last few weeks we have once again uncovered a few articles that not only pique our interest.
Storytelling is considered an effective communication method because it engages narratives, which our brains are specifically wired to understand. Similarly in science communication, storytelling translates complex concepts into accessible and comprehensible ideas. What happens, however, in situations of intense difficulties or emergency, which cause hardships, anxiety and distress? These crisis situations draw us more towards facts that ensure security rather that anecdotes that evoke empathy. This reading list focuses on answering that question by analysing how storytelling can still be an effective strategy to bring relevant information to the general public through looking at crisis situations.
Crisis situations are, however, different. That is because these are stress inducing situations, where our brain becomes more neurotic, hurried, irrational, all of which affect our decision making and attention. Generally in this type of circumstance, it would be logical to say that in stressful situations we are more drawn to quickly accessible and short informative snippets of news rather than extensive narratives. However, is that truly so?
Due to its abundance of formats and styles, storytelling is an effective method of communication in many different situations. This means that even in crisis situations, where our brains, due to hormonal responses, are in a much more agitated state, stories can still transmit important information, facts and figures. More so, instead of bombarding us with news, storytelling engages our senses and leads to a more active and critical response, which has the potential to bring social change.
Many tips have been shared over the past weeks and months. This one is the perfect AI for research, and the other is the perfect AI for editing texts. Ideas for the best prompts for semantics-based generative AIs are flooding Twitter, Reddit, and the like. In this Reading List, we don’t want to give tips on which AI can be used for what. For a reading list, that doesn’t make much sense at the moment, not least because of the fast pace of technological development. We also don’t want to report on how AI can have an impact on science communication. We already did that last summer in Reading List #021. Rather, we have collected a few texts on thoughts about how AI could change science in the coming years. Enjoy reading!
Artificial intelligence with an overview
One of the biggest challenges of science, regardless of discipline, is keeping up with the flood of articles. 70,000 publications deal with the protein p53, according to the think tank Enago. This is the first I’ve heard of it today. Apparently, it is relevant for the early detection of tumors. In 1993, it was voted “Molecule of the Year”. On the occasion of this anniversary, an AI of my choice finds the following review: “The first 30 years of p53: growing ever more complex” by Arnold J Levine and Moshe Oren (paywall). In fact, there are now a number of tools that claim to find articles and present them in their respective publication context. The start has been made.
Disruptive Artificial Intelligence
With the newly gained overview, the quality of results and outcomes can also be reclassified. And this also applies outside of science. In an interview with Digitale Welt, Prof. Mario Trapp, director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Cognitive Systems IKS, remarks: “Even if you can still have the results of AI checked for plausibility by doctors today, this will hardly be possible in the future because of the increasing complexity.” The choice of words is exciting: Trained people can still check the plausibility of results. This will probably no longer be possible for a long time.
As a new key technology with a broad spectrum of applications (even if all references and points of reference so far point to medicine), universities are now facing investment hype for the third time since the 1950s and 1970s. This time, multidisciplinary research in step with action (i.e. industry) and politics is particularly in demand. At least that is the argument of Y. K Dwivedi et al. in an opinion paper published in the International Journal of Information Management. More applied, and with a focus on the extent to which the greatly altered interests brought about by AI interact with media, industry, and research, G. Berman, K. Williams, and S. Michalska argue in their study that research in the field of artificial intelligence functions differently than in other fields.
Proactive Artificial Objectivity
AIs help to keep track of things, they flush new money into the universities’ coffers. Overwhelmed, I return to medicine and to an article from 2018. On the Science Blog – Kaleidoscope for Science, Norbert Bischofberger wrote a fascinating article entitled “With artificial intelligence to a proactive medicine? A question that applies in a modified form to all disciplines today?
At that time, Bischofberger concluded that we might soon no longer “react” but proactively take care of ourselves. Five years later, knowledge production could soon be taken proactively into the hands of AIs. The question is whether an objective understanding of science will play into our hands. We will see.
It can be argued well and lengthy about what is appropriate when it comes to evaluating the relevance, quality and significance of research work and making it measurable. The selected good reads encompass a range of perspectives, including open access repositories, research impact assessment, research evaluation projects, comprehensive assessment methods, and research grant evaluation.
For once, let’s not start with theory work, but in a very practical way. The “Your Impact” research guide by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) offers comprehensive information on evaluating research impact. It covers various metrics, tools, and methodologies to assess the societal, academic, and economic impacts of research. This guide provides practical advice to researchers, librarians, and administrators on navigating the complex landscape of research evaluation, empowering them to demonstrate the value and significance of their work.
Choose your methods wisely – they might be assessed
Of course, the choice of method always influences the results. And this also applies to the methods used to measure the impact of science. A recent project on evaluating research conducted by RAND Europe aims to improve understanding and methodologies for assessing research quality and impact. Their website offers insights into ongoing projects, publications, and tools related to research evaluation. RAND Europe’s expertise in research evaluation provides valuable insights for policymakers, funding agencies, and research institutions seeking to enhance evaluation practices and inform evidence-based decision-making.
If you are looking for a clear and theoretically sound introduction to the topic of research evaluation, Evaluating Research in Context: A Method for Comprehensive Assessment by Jack Spaapen, Huub Dijstelbloem and Frank Wamelink from 2007 is recommended. The focus is on one thing, as the title suggests: Context. The right context is important if not only publications in journals and their ranking values are to be counted. Contextual consideration is crucial in science impact assessment. Research takes place within diverse fields, each with its own objectives, methodologies, and timelines. Therefore, relying solely on universal indicators may oversimplify the evaluation process and fail to capture the nuances of different disciplines. By accounting for the contextual aspects, such as field-specific metrics, geographic factors, and research goals, a more accurate assessment of impact can be achieved.
Assessment of research should recognise diversity of outputs, practices and activities
At Oikoplus, we work in a number of projects funded or co-funded by Horizon Europe, the European Union’s research and innovation program. This raises a very practical question: How does the EU measure the impact of the projects it (co-)funds? The EU Commission calls its new impact monitoring framework ‘Key Impact Pathways’. A recent working document provides an insight into the various indicators used by the EU Commission to evaluate projects.
Science impact assessment is essential for evaluating the broader influence and value of research.
When it comes to evaluation and measurability, it is obvious to operationalize success in numbers. However, there is no scheme for this operationalization that can represent the different types of scientific practice in a comparable way. Researchers are aware of this. One answer to the problem is the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). Hundreds of universities, institutes, and scientific institutions have already joined the Coalition, united by the vision “that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.”
Research assessment should always consider the indicators used and the specific context of the research being assessed. By adopting a comprehensive and contextual approach to impact assessment, stakeholders can gain a more nuanced understanding of research outcomes, encourage diverse research pathways, and make informed decisions to support the advancement of science and its positive societal impact.
The ability to understand one’s immediate surroundings has always been an extremely important skill. For this reason, humanity has spent thousands of years developing and perfecting the craft of representing spatial information including routes or landforms. In today’s age of modern technology, however, the amount and variety of information that needs to be mapped are increasing. Nowadays the ability to have a grasp on our surroundings is proving more complex. This reading list will therefore explore how cartography turns out to be useful to facilitate knowledge exchanges and how it can serve as a vehicle for critical thinking.
Explaining Cartography
Cartography is the practice of map-making. Originally cartographers graphically represented spatial or geographical data but are now faced with having to translate diverse figures from multiple sensors and multiple origins. According to Elik Eizenberg in Forbes technology online magazine, we find ourselves swimming in data (and should care about it). As we can’t fully harness all data, the data scientists’ continuation of collecting new data, slowly loses meaning. Mapping, Georg Gartner argues in an article for Ersi, the global leader in geographic information systems, bridges between human users and all this data. It uses visualization to make science approachable to the public, fully unleashing its potential.
Empowering citizens to make informed decisions can also have another effect, namely mutual information exchange. Originally cartographers collect data from various measuring tools such as aerial photographs, remote sensing, field observations, or coordinate lists. This data, however, as mentioned by Horizon 2020-funded WeObserve, has a scarce update date due to increased costs and timely data validation procedures. Today, considering the increased complexity of data, cartographers also turn to alternative sources such as citizens.
Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0
Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0
Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0
According to Caroline Anstey for The New York Times, this new shift towards crowdsourcing information is immensely useful to cartography. Citizens provide both quantitative, but also qualitative data often omitted by cartographers. The citizens’ expertise comes from living in one place for a prolonged period of time. Changes in demographics, environment, human relations, or even housing habits are useful to mapping projects as they can translate into policies or planning decisions. To build trust underlying this exchange, cartographers should provide citizens with clear and understandable information.
Obtaining accurate cartographic data through crowdsourcing is something that is in its early stages, but is increasingly practiced. Especially because now citizens have increasingly more opportunities to use tools, which give them access to global data. On an entrepreneurial scale, this is already taking place. The Domino-E project, which focuses on developing a federation layer optimising the availability of Earth observation data, builds on interoperability and knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing generates knowledge creation, which is why it is important for cartographers to bet for information exchange as it benefits both them and citizens equally.
On difficult topics, moral questions, research ethics and conflicts of interest in science communication.
In science, there are subject areas that are teeming with communication pitfalls. Topics that are controversial in society, research that uses controversial methods and technologies with uncertain consequences. They require sensitivity and caution when it comes to communicating their results in an understandable and accessible way to a large and public audience. Ethical questions are often the subject of intense debate, because widespread social values and morals are challenged. Examples of such research topics are genetic engineering, animal experiments in the life sciences or aspects of gender studies in humanities.
Photo by Zuzana Ruttkayova: https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-wooden-beach-dock-under-cloudy-sky-7225642/
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood
A researcher involved in one of the projects in which Oikoplus is a partner responsible for science communication and dissemination expressed this in an email just recently: „Our research requires that we are very careful with the information that is out there. I would like to avoid a situation of messaging getting misunderstood or misexplained. I could think of a gazillion ways this could go wrong in a spur of the moment.” Well – it’s hard to completely rule out the possibility of communication being misunderstood.
At the very least, however, there is a very simple rule that can be followed if, because of the sensitivity of a topic, you attach great importance to remaining factually correct and offering as little room for interpretation as possible: Avoid humour, especially in social media. Good humour is the most difficult discipline of entertainment, and most punchlines do not come without collateral damage, without people feeling hit and hurt. Therefore, science communication usually has to be serious, polite and correct. Or else, one deliberately chooses the humorous path, even if it may be risky. Kelleigh Greene has written about humour in science communication for the Scientia blog. She argues that humour and science communication indeed do go together.
No fear of the target audience
Caution is required when communicating sensitive issues. However, one should not completely subject one’s communication to caution and avoid discourse. Science can withstand criticism. However, this does not mean that each individual scientist must be able to withstand criticism. What we always tell our partners in science: Don’t panic! The loudest critics in the discourse are rarely representative of the public as a whole. And sometimes particularly loud criticism belies quiet agreement. Using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology as a case, communication researchers at the University of Twente in the Netherlands investigated the different perspectives within the Dutch public on this relatively new genetic engineering method. The communication researchers used the Q method, in which statements from study participants (here n=30) are ranked according to the degree of agreement. It turned out that the participants were generally open and optimistic about the CRISPR/Cas9 technology.
Photo by Edward Jenner: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-a-person-s-hands-holding-a-petri-dish-with-blue-liquid-4031369/
Cutting through discursive pitfalls is not easy. Sometimes it is simply impossible. But transparency and openness, can hardly hurt to enable the broadest and most open discussion about research and its results. At Oikoplus, we support researchers in explaining their work and making it accessible. We always advise them not to hide in the process.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
