Exploring ‘quality’ in science communication online: Expert thoughts on how to assess and promote science communication quality in digital media contexts

Birte Fähnrich, Emma Weitkamp*, J. Frank Kupper

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In recent years, the public visibility of science has greatly increased. In the digital media landscape, a wide range of players is now engaged in science communication via various online channels. While these developments offer opportunities, they also entail risks for the quality of science communication. This study explores how the quality of science communication can be assessed and promoted in the increasingly complex digital ecosystem. A two-wave survey with international science communication experts served as a basis to develop a quality framework for digital science communication and to formulate strategies to promote the quality of science communication online. Besides these outcomes, results hint at blind spots in the discourse of science communication quality that demand further investigation and reflection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)605-621
Number of pages17
JournalPublic Understanding of Science
Volume32
Issue number5
Early online date31 Jan 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This submission is an output of the RETHINK project which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 824573.

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.

Keywords

  • digital media
  • quality
  • science communication

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Exploring ‘quality’ in science communication online: Expert thoughts on how to assess and promote science communication quality in digital media contexts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this