Mapping the Contemporary Science Communication Landscape in Canada

Michelle Riedlinger1, Alexandre Schiele2 and Germana Barata3, 4

1 Communications Department, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, Canada

2 UQAM East Asia Observatory, Université du Québec au Montréal, Montreal, Canada

3 Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Journalism, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

4 School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Abstract: The new media landscape presents challenges and opportunities for science writers and communicators that have not yet been fully realised. This paper presents the findings of collaborative work conducted using emerging new media research tools, including Altmetrics and traditional survey tools to identify the growing social media communicators engaging Canadian publics with science. Using an online survey tool, we compared survey responses from these social media science communicators to members of Canada’s professional member associations—the Canadian Science Writers Association (CSWA) and the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec. We found that Canadian social media science communicators were younger, paid less (or not at all)for their science communication activities, and had been communicating science for fewer years than other kinds of science communicators. They were more likely to have a science background(rather than communication, journalism or education background) and were less likely to be members of professional associations. These communicators tended to communicate with each other through their own informal networks. These findings provide professional science communication organisations in Canada with empirical grounding to help them develop training, support and outreach activities to improve the quality and ethical standards of public engagement with science in Canada.

1. Introduction

The Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) has recognised over the last ten years that economic and technological changes have fractured the mainstream media landscape, creating changes to their membership base. SWCC first formed in 1971 as the the Canadian Science Writers Association (CSWA) to support professionalism in Canadian science journalist and broadcasting. However, the organisation recognises that a growing number of Canadian communicators, working as freelancers or in unpaid capacities, are engaging publics with science. The Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec (ACS) recognises that French-speaking science communicators face similar challenges, and a new challenge of establishing online presences in the overwhelmingly Anglophone social media environment of Canada. Both organisations wish to know more about the challenges and opportunities for science communication in the current media landscape, including demonstrating where sustainable career paths in new and emerging science communication professions may exist, and pointing to new ethical challenges for science communication in the changing social media environments.

2. The Science Communication Landscape in Canada

1) Canada’s Developing Science Communication Landscape

Canada’s modern science communication landscape developed out of the professionalization of science writing and broadcasting that emerged after World War Ⅱ, and Canadian government investment in science communication efforts from the 1980s until early in the 21st century. Government efforts during this time recognized that economic and social progress could not be separated from science and technological progress(Schiele et al., 2012). During the latter part of the 20th century, science communication efforts in Canada focussed on informing the public, promoting scientific careers to support economic development, and increasing science literacy in the canadian population. In the early 21st century, Canadian science communication efforts focussed on public engagement, knowledge co-creation(Einsiedel, 2008), and a ‘science in culture’—or thinking about how society talks about science.

The science communication landscape in Canada is rapidly changing. Federal and Provincial government support in Canada for science and science communication has reduced in recent times (Boon, 2017). And Canadian journalists are seeing a change in how publics prefer to receive news. In 2016, around 40% of the Canadian population spent more than three hours online daily and nearly 60% of Canadians use social media and the Internet to search for news and current events (CIRA, 2016). Canadians prefer to be informed through the media but on their own timelines and with little or no cost to themselves (The Shattered Mirror, 2017). Scientific researchers in Canada are also increasingly pressured to demonstrate research impact as part of the current ‘audit culture’ of universities and research institutes. Many are taking on roles as scientist-communicators in social media settings. Added to the social media dissemination of science are the blurring boundaries between journalism and communication systems (Rollwagen et al., 2017), with many former science journalists working in freelance operations. In 2015, Rollwagen and her colleagues surveyed Canadian journalists to look at the implications of the changing media landscape. They found that some of the greatest impacts on the work of journalists were procedural—including information access, journalistic ethics, media laws and regulations, available news gathering resources, and time constraints of the job. Many of these procedural influences are quite feasibly different for science communicators working outside of mainstream journalistic systems. Bucchi (2013)argues that these conditions, which include a declining role for filters and processes to guarantee the quality of information, can be summed up as a ‘crisis of mediators’. Social media communicators may have different interpretations of information quality, accountability and professionalism. If trust in science relies on trust in science communication (Weingart et al., 2017), then addressing what quality science communication looks like in Canada’s fractured media landscape is an important focus for research efforts. Bucchi (2017) argues that declining quality of science communication via the Internet and links to declining trust in science have yet to be established—but he does call on researchers and institutions to take greater responsibility for producing quality science communication and critiquing science where it is needed. If discussions about science in society are to be democratic (Bucchi, 2017), then greater recognition and support may be needed for the growing number of people working outside of intuitional structures who communicate about science in the contemporary media landscape.

2) Roles for Professional Member Associations

Professional member associations in Canada have recognised that they play important roles in supporting critical innovation in science writing and communication. The Canadian Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC)is paying close attention to these issues. After much debate occurring over many years, the organisation recently changed its name from the Canadian Association of Science Writers (CASW)to recognise their changing membership base, and the important roles for science communicators in Canada. Both the SWCC and the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec(ACS) are keenly interested in who is communicating science in Canada and how they are doing it so they can better develop new policies and practices.

This collaborative project has two parts:

(1) identifying and mapping social media science communicators in Canada;

(2) surveying Canadian social media communicators and members of SWCC and ACS and comparing their responses to those of social media communicators identifed through social media mapping methods.

The focus of this paper is the second part—the comparison of professional association members and this emerging, possibly independent group of social media communicators.

3. Methods

1) Identifying and Mapping Social Media Science Communicators in Canada

We started by identifying Canadian science communicators on Twitter and Instagram, two of the most popular social media platforms in Canada. For Twitter, we obtained data from Altmetric.com, which produces alternative metrics to track how papers are shared on social media and other online platforms as Wikipedia, news outlets, blogs. We identifed Twitter science communicators with the tag ‘science communicators’using geolocation to narrow the population down to Canadian communicators. We gathered 855,016 Tweets between 2015 and 2016 and then tracked kewords and #hashtags related to ‘science communicator’, both in French and English, on the biographies of Twitter handles. After cleaning the data we identified a total of 197 Twitter unique IDs.

We used Netlytic software, developed by Ryerson University, Canada to identify Instagram communicators. General geolocation on Instagram is reported to be around 6%, so we extracted different sets of data using four hashtags:scicomm, commsci, vulgarisation and sciart. We also tracked keywords related to Canada in the biographies of Instagram users as a way to identify their geolocation (i.e. provinces, capitals, as well as #cdn, Canadian). After cleaning the data, we identified 59 Instagram science communicators posting from Canada.

Findings from this identification and mapping work are presented in another paper in these proceedings (Barata et al., 2018). However, we note here that the geographical patterns of science communicators affiliated with the two professional associations and those identified through social media methods were similar, with strong concentrations in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and, to a lesser extent British Columbia.

2) Surveying Science Communicators in Canada

We invited science communicators identifed through Twitter and Instragram, and members of SWCC and ACS to complete an online survey. This survey was designed to compare the demographics of these populations, their activities related to science writing and communication, their attitudes towards science writing and communication, and their social media practices. We sent out an initial invitation and three reminders. We received responses rates of over 25% for each population group (143/524 or 27% of SWCC members; 87/309 or 28% of ACS members; and 74/256 or 29% social media communicators identifed through Altmetric and Netlytic).

We conducted quantitative data analysis on the responses we received using IMB SPSS 24 statistics software. Qualitative data from the open-ended questions was coded using NVivo 11 qualitative analysis software. Data is reported below as descriptive statistics and associations through cross tabulations (chi square).

4. Findings

1) Demographic Comparisons

The demographics of the SWCC and the ACS groups of survey respondents were found to be relatively similar. The ACS group had the highest proportion of respondents who were paid employees, and the social media respondents we identified through social media mapping had the lowest proportion. Over 40% of social media group respondents identified through Altmetric and other online mapping tools were unpaid for the science writing and communication work they did.

Compared to professional association members, the social media communicators we identified through new media mapping were more likely to be female (χ2(1) = 4.97, p= 0.026) and younger(less than 30 years of age) (χ2(2) = 35.64, p=0.000). SWCC respondents were more likely than respondents from the social media group to indicate that they earn more than CAD$50,000 per year for science writing or communication work (χ2(3) = 25.69, p= 0.000) and were more likely to have ten or more years experience in the field when compared with respondents from the social media groups (χ2(3) = 40.79, p = 0.000). There were no significant differences between SWCC members and the respondents from the social media group identified through social media mapping in terms of respondents’ main source of income. However, SWCC members were more likely than social media group respondents to state that science writing or communication was their primary occupation (χ2(1) =5.73, p= 0.017).

Respondents from the social media group were less likely to have a professional background in areas other than science (i.e. journalism, communication, education, public relations or marketing) (χ2(1) = 18.05, p= 0.000). However, there was no significant relationship between these groups in terms of the level of training they had received (certificate, degree, graduate study etc.). The number of social media respon-dents who belonged to a professional science writing or communication association was much smaller than the number of respondents from the SWCC group. We could not demonstrate a statistical difference because we only asked respondents to name the professional associations they belong to, so numbers were based on counting those respondents who nominated a professional association. Only 14 respondents from the social media group indicated that they belonged to a professional science writing/communication association. However, social media group respondents were more likely to be involved in an informal network of science writers or communicators than SWCC members(χ2(1) = 10.18, p= 0.001). These networks included informal social media groups, local events or groups that got together face-to-face, and connections with trusted colleagues and fellow alumni from university and college courses.

2) Communication Purposes and Challenges

The main purpose SWCC members gave for science writing and communication was increasing public awareness, while ACS members stated that their main purpose was helping the public form opinions. Social media group respondents nominated quite mixed purposes but when the three groups were compared, the patterns were not significantly different at p< 0.05. Any differences we identified in the patterns of findings associated with key challenges to science writing and communication were not statistically significant. However, all science writers and communicators identified major challenges associated with funding and time.

3) Science Communication and Quality

In an open-ended question we asked respondents to describe ‘What makes “good” science writing or communication?’ For all three groups, ‘accuracy’ was nominated as one of the top five categories. ACS members were the only ones to use the term ‘vulgarised’, which refers to the use of non-specialised language. We also asked respondents to cite up to three groups or individuals who, in their opinion, were engaging in good science writing and communication practices. In comparison to the social media group of communicators, SWCC and ACS respondents focussed more on mainstream journalists, traditional publications and broadcast mediums. Respondents from all groups included communicators and organisations that aimed their activities at schools and youth, including museums and science centres, and outreach activities from universities and research institutes. Respondents from the social media group identified through social media mapping particularly emphasised the work of ‘scientist’ communicators who aimed their communication at adults through social media and broadcast media. SWCC and social media respondents both also noted the good practices of recently-emerging English-language independent online publications aimed at all ages, such as the blogging platform, Science Borealis and Hakai magazine. They also recognised science communication aimed at adults through YouTube and podcasts.

4) Social Media Communication Practices

Not surprisingly, respondents identified through the social media mapping work were more prolific users of social media for science writing and communication compared to professional association members. We could not identify statistically significant patterns in the use of particular social media platforms because numbers of respondents were small. However, preferences for all groups were divided between Twitter and Facebook; social media group respondents appeared to actively engage in the range of social media platforms we asked them about:Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Tumblr, Pinterest and Snapchat. SWCC member group respondents who used social media were more likely to receive funding for social media activities than respondents in the social media group identified through social media mapping(χ2(2) = 9.00, p= 0.011) and ACS member respondents. Around 60% of ACS/SWCC members stated that their social media activities were unfunded or self-funded. Over 75% of respondents from the group identified through social media mapping stated that their social media activities were self-funded or unfunded.

Finally we coded the responses to an openended question asking respondents in the three groups to talk about why they used social media for science communication. Of the top five responses, the following three were common across the three groups:

(1) The broad reach of social media.

(2) Targeting or engaging with particular interested audiences or communities.

(3) Being able to see social media users interact with each other.

5. Discussion

In this study, we set out to compare survey responses from professional member association respondents to responses from science communicators who we identified through social media mapping. Our findings confirm pre-existing understandings that many science communicators in Canada are not captured by the professional member organisations. We found that the respondents from the social media science communicator group were demographically different to professional association members in many ways. Scientist-communicators and others who did not work as professional science writers or communicators were participating in science communication activities in unpaid or self-funded capacities. They also used a wider range of social media platforms than professional association members. Social media communicators currently have a greater reliance on informal networks to connect with others doing similar work, indicating concurrent streams of activity with little overlap between professional and informal networks.

We also identified some commonalities across the groups. We found no significant differences in the patterns of challenges faced by social media communicators and those who belonged to professional member associations—time and funding were the biggest challenges for all groups. Accuracy in science writing and communication was a key value for respondents for all groups, as were traditional journalistic values (i.e. relevance, accessibility, storytelling, independent research, and credible/trusted sources of information), and language choices (style)associated with user engagement.

SWCC have indicated that they will use this information to encourage a diversity of science writing and communication practices (without conflating science journalism and communication), tap into informal networks, provide better networking opportunities for science writers and communicators in Canada, and support independent science communication enterprises and the work of freelance science writers and social media communicators. They have indicated that they will work more closely with university-employed scientists, science communication consultants, science writers working for independent media outlets, and social media communicators to better understand their professional practices and career trajectories. They will use this information to help develop training courses for members and themes for future SWCC conferences.

Of particular interest is investigating how writers and communicators are balancing concerns of generating income and managing the increasing demands on their time, with producing accurate and engaging science-related content. SWCC has developed a new Ethics Committee to examine professional norms and conduct (e.g. hype, accuracy and conflicts of interest) in the contemporary media landscape, which will be informed by findings from this project.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)Partnership grant (892-2017-2019) held by researchers, Juan Alperin at Simon Fraser University (SFU), Michelle Riedlinger at the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) and the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada(SWCC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful for the continued support of Juan Pablo Alperin from the School of Publishing at SFU, and the assistance of Shelley McIvor, Janice Benthin and Tim Lougheed from SWCC and Stéphanie Thibault from Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec (ACS). We would also like to thank Chantal Chapman from UFV for her assistance with data analysis. Finally, we would like to thank everyone who participated in the survey. Without their input we would have nothing to report here. Their contribution to this project is significant and gratefully appreciated.

References

Barata, G., Riedlinger, M., Schiele, A., et al. (2018) Using social media metrics to identify science communicators in Canada. Science & You, Beijing, China. 15-17 September.

Boon, S. (2017). Science funding in Canada should include science communication. Watershed Moments:Thoughts from the Hydrosphere [blog]. Retrieved from https://snowhydro1.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/science-funding-in-canada-should-include-science-communication/.

Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 904-915. doi:10.1177/0963662513498202.

Bucchi, M. (2017). Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 890-893. Doi:10.1177/0963662517733368.

Canadian Internet Registration Authority (2016). Internet use in Canada. Cora Internet Factbook 2016. Retrieved from. https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/internet-use-canada.

Einsiedel, E. (2008). Public participation and dialogue. In M. Bucchi, B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology(pp. 173-184). London/New York: Routledge.

Rollwagen et al. (2017). Professional role orientations and perceived in fluences among Canadian journalists:Preliminary findings from the Canadian Worlds of Journalism Study. 2015 Proceedings of the Journalism Interest Group of the Canadian Communications Association. Retrieved from http://cca.kingsjournalism.com/?p=400.

Schiele, B., Landry, A. (2012). The development of science communication studies in Canada. In Science communication in the world (pp. 33-63). Springer, Dordrecht.

Weingart, P., Taubert, N. (Eds.). (2017). The future of scholarly publishing: Open access and the economics of digitisation. Cape Town, SA:African Minds.