Critical topics and good practices for trust in science communication before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Carlo Gubitosa, D. Domingo
{"title":"Critical topics and good practices for trust in science communication before and during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Carlo Gubitosa, D. Domingo","doi":"10.14324/rfa.06.1.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nFor a qualitative analysis of factors affecting trust in science communication (scicomm) we used the Delphi method to reach a pool of experts based in Italy and Belgium (researchers/academics, journalists and scicomm practitioners) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed a ‘strong’ consensus (confirmed before and during the pandemic) about good practices promoting trust in scicomm (mainly based on direct interactions with targeted audiences), and about critical topics where trust plays a key role. Such topics include vaccines and the role of pharmaceutical companies, climate change and environmental issues, medical sciences, communication of health risks and public health issues. According to our results, issues related to health and environment were perceived as critical and controversial subjects for trust in scicomm even before the pandemic. The same pool of experts also expressed very diverse views regarding risks and threats to trust in scicomm, and the social, cultural, political and environmental factors that can increase and promote trust in scientific communication among lay audiences. Such diversity reveals the need for further research to explore differences due to the context, based on the individual views of experts or generated from a conceptualisation of trust in scicomm which may be still fuzzy and unclear.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.06.1.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For a qualitative analysis of factors affecting trust in science communication (scicomm) we used the Delphi method to reach a pool of experts based in Italy and Belgium (researchers/academics, journalists and scicomm practitioners) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed a ‘strong’ consensus (confirmed before and during the pandemic) about good practices promoting trust in scicomm (mainly based on direct interactions with targeted audiences), and about critical topics where trust plays a key role. Such topics include vaccines and the role of pharmaceutical companies, climate change and environmental issues, medical sciences, communication of health risks and public health issues. According to our results, issues related to health and environment were perceived as critical and controversial subjects for trust in scicomm even before the pandemic. The same pool of experts also expressed very diverse views regarding risks and threats to trust in scicomm, and the social, cultural, political and environmental factors that can increase and promote trust in scientific communication among lay audiences. Such diversity reveals the need for further research to explore differences due to the context, based on the individual views of experts or generated from a conceptualisation of trust in scicomm which may be still fuzzy and unclear.
在2019冠状病毒病大流行之前和期间,科学传播信任的关键议题和良好做法
为了对影响科学传播信任的因素进行定性分析,我们使用德尔菲法在2019冠状病毒病大流行之前和期间访问了意大利和比利时的一批专家(研究人员/学者、记者和科学传播从业人员)。结果显示,在促进信任的良好做法(主要基于与目标受众的直接互动)和信任发挥关键作用的关键主题方面,形成了“强烈”共识(在大流行之前和期间得到证实)。这些主题包括疫苗和制药公司的作用、气候变化和环境问题、医学、健康风险的传播和公共卫生问题。根据我们的结果,即使在大流行之前,与健康和环境有关的问题也被视为对科学信任的关键和有争议的主题。同一群专家还就科学传播的信任所面临的风险和威胁,以及能够增加和促进非专业受众对科学传播的信任的社会、文化、政治和环境因素表达了非常不同的观点。这种多样性表明,需要进一步研究,以探索由于背景而产生的差异,这些差异是基于专家的个人观点,或源于对科学的信任概念,这可能仍然是模糊和不明确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信