Is this good science communication? Construction and validation of a multi-dimensional quality assessment scale from the audience’s perspective

IF 1.5 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Monika Taddicken, Julian Fick, Nina Wicke
{"title":"Is this good science communication? Construction and validation of a multi-dimensional quality assessment scale from the audience’s perspective","authors":"Monika Taddicken, Julian Fick, Nina Wicke","doi":"10.3389/fcomm.2024.1384403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The expansion of science communication underscores the increasing importance of understanding what constitutes good science communication. This question concerns the public’s understanding and engagement with science. The scholarly discussion has shifted from the traditional deficit model to a more dialog-oriented approach yet remains normatively anchored. There is a pivotal lack of attention to the audience’s perspective regarding the question of what good science communication is. Moreover, different formats of science communication have hardly been researched thus far. Therefore, this paper introduces a multi-dimensional scale to capture the audience’s assessment of specific science communication formats. We utilized a multi-step process to identify relevant criteria from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The instrument integrates 15 distinct quality dimensions, such as comprehensibility, credibility, fun, and applicability, structured according to different quality levels (functional, normative, user-, and communication-oriented). It considered theory-driven and practice-experienced categories and was validated through confirmatory factor analyses conducted on a German representative sample (n = 990). For validation, the scale was applied to a science blog post and a science video on homeopathy. After employing a seven-step process, we conclude that the newly devised scale effectively assesses the perceived quality of both blog and video science communication content. The overall assessment aligns with common target variables, such as interest and attitudes. The results regarding the different quality subdimensions provide a nuanced understanding of their contribution to the perceived overall quality. In this way, the scale aids in enhancing science communication in accordance with audience perceptions of quality. This marks the inaugural introduction of a comprehensive measurement instrument tailored to gauge quality from the audience’s standpoint, rendering it applicable for utilization by both researchers and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":31739,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1384403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The expansion of science communication underscores the increasing importance of understanding what constitutes good science communication. This question concerns the public’s understanding and engagement with science. The scholarly discussion has shifted from the traditional deficit model to a more dialog-oriented approach yet remains normatively anchored. There is a pivotal lack of attention to the audience’s perspective regarding the question of what good science communication is. Moreover, different formats of science communication have hardly been researched thus far. Therefore, this paper introduces a multi-dimensional scale to capture the audience’s assessment of specific science communication formats. We utilized a multi-step process to identify relevant criteria from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The instrument integrates 15 distinct quality dimensions, such as comprehensibility, credibility, fun, and applicability, structured according to different quality levels (functional, normative, user-, and communication-oriented). It considered theory-driven and practice-experienced categories and was validated through confirmatory factor analyses conducted on a German representative sample (n = 990). For validation, the scale was applied to a science blog post and a science video on homeopathy. After employing a seven-step process, we conclude that the newly devised scale effectively assesses the perceived quality of both blog and video science communication content. The overall assessment aligns with common target variables, such as interest and attitudes. The results regarding the different quality subdimensions provide a nuanced understanding of their contribution to the perceived overall quality. In this way, the scale aids in enhancing science communication in accordance with audience perceptions of quality. This marks the inaugural introduction of a comprehensive measurement instrument tailored to gauge quality from the audience’s standpoint, rendering it applicable for utilization by both researchers and practitioners.
这是好的科学传播吗?从受众角度构建和验证多维质量评估量表
科学传播的扩展突出表明,了解什么是良好的科学传播变得越来越重要。这个问题关系到公众对科学的理解和参与。学术界的讨论已经从传统的赤字模式转向更注重对话的方法,但仍以规范为基础。在 "什么是好的科学传播 "这一问题上,受众的视角明显缺乏关注。此外,迄今为止,几乎没有对科学传播的不同形式进行过研究。因此,本文引入了一个多维量表来捕捉受众对特定科学传播形式的评价。我们采用了一个多步骤的过程,从理论和实践的角度来确定相关标准。该工具整合了 15 个不同的质量维度,例如可理解性、可信度、趣味性和适用性,并根据不同的质量水平(功能性、规范性、用户性和传播导向性)进行结构化。该量表考虑了理论驱动和实践经验两个类别,并通过对德国代表性样本(n = 990)进行确认性因子分析进行了验证。为了进行验证,该量表被应用于一篇关于顺势疗法的科普博文和一段科普视频。经过七步流程后,我们得出结论,新设计的量表可以有效评估博客和视频科学传播内容的感知质量。整体评估结果与兴趣和态度等共同目标变量相一致。有关不同质量子维度的结果让我们对它们对整体感知质量的贡献有了细致的了解。因此,该量表有助于根据受众的质量感知加强科学传播。这标志着首次推出了从受众角度衡量质量的综合测量工具,使其适用于研究人员和从业人员。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
284
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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