More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Designing Digital Content to Support Science Journalism

Authors:

Konstantinos Zachos,

Suzanne Franks,

Samantha StallardAuthors Info & Claims

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

Article No.: 80, Pages 1 - 13

https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420124

Published: 26 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Journalists need to become more effective at communicating science and countering post-truth activities that seek to undermine scientific processes and evidence. Digital support for journalists when investigating and writing about science-related topics is one means of improving this science communication. However, little bespoke digital support is available. This paper reports the research and development of one new form of such digital support. During a participatory design process, experienced science journalists and other professionals were interviewed about their challenges experienced and understanding of good practices in science journalism. These challenges and good practices informed the development of a prototype of a new form of digital tool that was evaluated by journalists without specialist science training. A new version of the prototype, called INQUEST, was implemented to automate some parts of good practices in order to augment journalists’ capabilities. These practices included the retrieval of science information from diverse sources, targeting different science audiences, and providing different forms of guidance for explaining science to the target audience. This prototype is presented, and an early evaluation of it is reported.

References

[1]

Matthew Ancona. 2017. Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. Ebury Press

[2]

Martin W. Angler. 2017. Science Journalism: An Introduction. Routledge.

[3]

James Ball. 2017. Post Truth – How Bullshit conquered the World. Biteback Publishing.

[4]

John C. Besley. 2018. Audiences for Science Communication in the United States. Environmental Communication 12, 8, 1005-1022.

[5]

John C. Besley and Matthew Nisbet. 2011. How Scientists View the Public, the Media and the Political Process. Public Understanding of Science 22, 6, 644-659. DOI 10.1177/0963662511418743

[6]

Balázs Bodó (2019) Selling News to Audiences – A Qualitative Inquiry into the Emerging Logics of Algorithmic News Personalization in European Quality News Media. Digital Journalism 7(8), 1054-1075.

[7]

Massimiano Bucchi. 2013. Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 22, 8, 904–15. DOI 10.1177/0963662513498202

[8]

Sarah Castell, Anne Charlton, Michael Clemence, Nick Pettigrew, Sarah Pope, Anna Quigley, Jayesh Navin Shah and Tim Silman. 2014, Public Attitudes to Science, UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, accessed April 9, 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348830/bis-14-p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2014-main.pdf.

[9]

Mwenya Chimba and Jenny Kitzinger. 2010. Bimbo or Boffin? Women in Science: An Analysis of Media Representations and How Female Scientists Negotiate Cultural Contradictions. Public Understanding of Science 19, 5, 609–24.

[10]

Evan Davies. 2017. Post Truth: Why we have reached peak bullshit and what we can do about it. Little Brown, Great Britain.

[11]

Nick Davies. 2009. Flat Earth News. Vintage Books, London.

[12]

Emily Dawson. 2018. Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science 27, 7, 772-786.

[13]

DBpedia Spotlight. 2017. https://github.com/dbpedia-spotlight/, accessed December 21, 2017.

[14]

Sharon Dunwoody. 2014. Science Journalism: Prospects in the Digital Age. In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd ed.), Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench (editors), 27–39. Routledge, New York, NY.

[15]

FactCheck.org, https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck/. Accessed April 9, 2020.

[16]

Andrew Garbett, Rob Comber, Paul Egglestone, Maxine Glancy and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Finding "real people": trust and diversity in the interface between professional and citizen journalists, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'14), ACM Press, New York, NY 3015-3024.

Digital Library

[17]

Winifrid Goepfert. 2007. The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In Journalism, Science and Society, Martin W. Bauer M and Massimiano Bucchi, M (editors). Routledge, New York, 215-226.

[18]

Suzanne Goldenberg. 2012. Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate, accessed April 25, 2020.

[19]

Lars Guenther, Jenny Bischoff, Löwe, A., and Hanna Marzinkowski. 2017. Scientific evidence and science journalism: Analysing the representation of (un)certainty in German print and online media. Journalism studies 20(1), 40-59.

[20]

Anders Hansen. 2009. Science, Communication and Media. In Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age, Richard Holliman, Elizabeth Whitelegg, Eileen Scanlon, Sam Smidt, and Jeff Thomas (editors). 105–127. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

[21]

Joan M. Herbers 2007. Watch Your Language! Racially Loaded Metaphors in Scientific Research. BioScience 57, 2 (February 2007), 104–105.

[22]

Maja Horst, Sarah R. Davies and Alan Irwin. 2016. Reframing Science Communication. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (4 th ed), Clark A. Miller, Laurel Smith-Doerr and Ulrike Felt (editors), Cambridge, MIT Press.

[23]

Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti (Editors). 2018. Journalism, Fake News and Disinformation. Handbook for Journalism Education and Training UNESCO Series on Journalism Education. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0.pdf

[24]

Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.

[25]

David Kaiser, John Durant, Thomas Levenson, Ben Wiehe, and Peter Linett. 2014. Report of Findings: September 2013 Workshop. MIT and Culture Kettle. www.cultureofscienceengagement.net

[26]

Silje Kristiansen, Mike S. Schäfer, and Sabine Lorencez. 2016. Science journalists in Switzerland: Results from a survey on professional goals, working conditions, and current changes. Studies in Communication Sciences 16(2), 132-140.

[27]

Trudie Lang and Peter Drobac. 2020. How journalists can help stop the spread of the coronavirus outbreak. Reuters. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/how-journalists-can-help-stop-spread-coronavirus-outbreak

[28]

Markus Lehmkuhl and Hans Peter Peters. 2016. Constructing (Un-)Certainty: An Exploration of Journalistic Decision-Making in the Reporting of Neuroscience. Public Understanding of Science 25, 8, 909-926.

[29]

Raymond Liaw, Ari Zilnik, Mark Baldwin and Stephanie Butler. 2013. Maater: crowdsourcing to improve online journalism. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), ACM Press, New York, NY, 2549-2554.

Digital Library

[30]

Tommy Carl-Gustav Linden. 2018. Algorithms for journalism: The future of news work. The Journal of Media Innovation 4(1), 60-76.

[31]

Neil Maiden, George Brock, Konstantinos Zachos, Amanda Brown, Lars Nyre, Dimitris Apostolou and Jeremy Evans. 2018, Making the News: Digital Creativity Support for Journalists. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), ACM Press, New York, NY, Paper No 475.

Digital Library

[32]

Neil Maiden, Konstantinos Zachos, Amanda Brown, Lars Nyre, Balder Holm, Aleksander Tonheim, Claus Hesseling and Andrea Wagemans. 2019. Evaluating the Use of Digital Creativity Support by Journalists in Newsrooms’, In Proceedings 2019 SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C19), ACM Press, New York, NY, 222–232.

Digital Library

[33]

Henry Mance. 2016. Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c, accessed April 25, 2020.

[34]

William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization, Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8, 3, 243–281.

[35]

Oliver Marsh. 2018. "Nah, musing is fine. You don't have to be 'doing science'": emotional and descriptive meaning-making in online non-professional conversations about science. PhD thesis, Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, London, UK.

[36]

Anne-Lyse Minard, Manuela Speranza, Eneko Agirre, Itziar Aldabe, Marieke van Erp, Bernando Magnini, German Rigau and Ruben Urizar. 2015. SemEval-2015 Task 4: Timeline: cross-document event ordering. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 778-786.

[37]

Lene Nielsen. 2013. Personas. In Encyclopaedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed), Mads Soegaard Mads and Rikke Friis Dam (editors). Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation, 2013, http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/personas.html, accessed April 28, 2020.

[38]

Polyglot's documentation, 2017, http://polyglot.readthedocs.io, accessed December 21, 2017.

[39]

QUEST. 2020. Summary Report: European Science Communication Today. Deliverable D1.1, EU H2020-funded 824634 QUEST project.

[40]

Cecilia Rosen, Lars Guenther and Klara Froehlich. 2016. The question of newsworthiness: A cross-comparison among science journalists’ selection criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany. Science Communication 38(3), 328-355.

[41]

Alan Rushbridger. 2018. Breaking News: The Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters Now. Canongate.

[42]

Mike S. Schäfer. 2011. Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology Compass 5(6), 399-412.

[43]

Mike S. Schäfer, Tobias Füchslin, Julia Metag, Silje Kristiansen and Adrian Rauchfleisch. 2018. The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population's perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns, Public Understanding of Science 27, 1, 836–856.

[44]

Scholarcy, https://www.scholarcy.com, accessed April 9, 2020.

[45]

Sophie Schünemann. 2013. Science Journalism. In Specialist Journalism. Barry Turner and Richard Orange (editors). Routledge, London, 134-146.

[46]

C. Estelle Smith, Eduardo Nevarez and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Disseminating Research News in HCI: Perceived Hazards, How-To's, and Opportunities for Innovation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’20), ACM Press, New York, NY

Digital Library

[47]

Helle Sjøvaag. 2014. Homogenisation or Differentiation? The Effects of Consolidation in the Regional Newspaper Market. Journalism Studies 15, 5. 511-521.

[48]

Saniat Javid Sohrawardi, Sovantharith Seng, Akash Chintha, Bao Thai, Andrea Hickerson, Raymond Ptucha, and Matthew Wright. 2020. DeFaking Deepfakes: Understanding Journalists’ Needs for Deepfake Detection. In Proceedings of the Computation + Journalism 2020 Conference. Northeastern University.

[49]

Ivor Shapiro. 2010. Evaluating Journalism. Journalism Practice 4(2), 143-163.

[50]

Jon Sopel. 2018. From 'alternative facts' to rewriting history in Trump's White House. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44959300, accessed April 25, 2020.

[51]

Annika Summ and Anna-Maria Volpers. 2016. What's science? Where's science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science 25(7), 775-790.

[52]

Mico Tatalovic. 2018. AI writing bots are about to revolutionise science journalism: we must shape how this is done. Journal of Science Communication 17, 1.

[53]

Cynthia Taylor and Bryan M. Dewsbury. 2018. On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication, J Microbiol Biol Educ 19, 1. 46.

[54]

Peter Tolmie, Rob N Procter, Mark Rouncefield, Dave Randall, Christian Burger, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, Arkaitz Zubiaga and Maria Liakata. 2017. Supporting the use of user generated content in journalistic practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17), ACM Press, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[55]

Raghuram Vadapalli, Bakhtiyar Syed. & Nishant Prabhu. 2018. Sci-Blogger: A Step Towards Automated Science Journalism. In Proceedings 27 th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’18). ACM Press, New York NY. 1787-1790.

Digital Library

[56]

Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Host, Magnus C. Ohlsson., Bjorn Regnell and Anders Wesslen. 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London.

Cited By

Nishal SSinchai JDiakopoulos N(2024)Understanding Practices around Computational News Discovery Tools in the Domain of Science JournalismProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36374198:CSCW1(1-36)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637419
Vonk ABos Mvan Sebille E(2024)Journalism Versus Churnalism: How News Factors in Press Releases Affect Journalistic Processing of Ocean Plastic Research in Newspapers GloballyJournalism Studies10.1080/1461670X.2024.2409836(1-20)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2409836
Willinsky JPimentel D(2024)The publication facts label: A public and professional guide for research articlesLearned Publishing10.1002/leap.159937:2(139-146)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1599
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Designing Digital Content to Support Science Journalism
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Designing Digital Musical Instruments: Adopting an ecological lens to identify design considerations
DIS '21 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

Important considerations for the design of a Digital Musical Instrument (DMI) arise at the intersection of the disciplines of New Musical Interface design (NMI), Human-computer Interaction (HCI), and Interaction Design (IxD). A review of existing ...
Designing Together?: Group Dynamics in Participatory Digital Badge Design with Teens
IDC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children

Balancing the dynamics between industry, academia, and stakeholders in a participatory design (PD) project can be challenging, particularly with teens as design partners. In this reflective case study of digital badge design, we attempt to untangle ...
Bridging Work Practice and System Design: Integrating Systemic Analysis, Appreciative Intervention and Practitioner Participation

This article discusses the integration of work practice and system design. By scrutinising the unfolding discourse of workshop participants the co-construction of work practice issues as relevant design considerations is described. Through a mutual ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 2020

1177 pages

ISBN:9781450375795

DOI:10.1145/3419249

General Chairs:
David Lamas
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Hegle Sarapuu
Trinidad Wiseman, Estonia
,
Publications Chairs:
Ilja Šmorgun
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Gerd Berget
Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 October 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

Conference

NordiCHI '20

NordiCHI '20: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 25 - 29, 2020

Tallinn, Estonia

Acceptance Rates

NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 89 of 399 submissions, 22%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
242
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)63
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nishal SSinchai JDiakopoulos N(2024)Understanding Practices around Computational News Discovery Tools in the Domain of Science JournalismProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36374198:CSCW1(1-36)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637419
Vonk ABos Mvan Sebille E(2024)Journalism Versus Churnalism: How News Factors in Press Releases Affect Journalistic Processing of Ocean Plastic Research in Newspapers GloballyJournalism Studies10.1080/1461670X.2024.2409836(1-20)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2409836
Willinsky JPimentel D(2024)The publication facts label: A public and professional guide for research articlesLearned Publishing10.1002/leap.159937:2(139-146)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1599
Martín-Neira JTrillo-Domínguez MOlvera-Lobo M(2023)Ibero-American journalism in the face of scientific disinformation: Fact-checkers’ initiatives on the social network InstagramEl Profesional de la información10.3145/epi.2023.sep.03Online publication date: 17-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.03
Løvlie AWaagstein AHyldgård P(2023)“How Trustworthy Is This Research?” Designing a Tool to Help Readers Understand Evidence and Uncertainty in Science JournalismDigital Journalism10.1080/21670811.2023.219334411:3(431-464)Online publication date: 5-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2193344
Martin Neira JTrillo Domínguez MOlvera Lobo M(2022)Comunicación científica tras la crisis del COVID-19: estrategias de publicación en TikTok en el tablero transmediaRevista Latina de Comunicación Social10.4185/RLCS-2023-1841(109-132)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2023-1841
Martin-Neira JDomínguez MOlvera-Lobo M(2022)Digital Journalism and Transmedia Narratives in the Communication of ScienceHandbook of Research on Digital Transformation Management and Tools10.4018/978-1-7998-9764-4.ch024(531-555)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9764-4.ch024
Nyre LMaiden N(2022)Can action research improve local journalism?Nordicom Review10.2478/nor-2022-001143:2(171-189)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0011
Franks SJoubert MWells Rvan Zuydam L(2022)Beyond Cheerleading: Navigating the Boundaries of Science Journalism in South AfricaJournalism Studies10.1080/1461670X.2022.214182024:14(1734-1753)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2141820

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents