How to convey trustworthiness in science communication

Enlarge

When you look at current world affairs, and how people are responding to them, you quickly get the impression that trust is crumbling: “We’re all sensing a general loss of trust – trust in social elites, politics, and the media, but also in science.”

Like so many others, Professor Lars Guenther feels that sense of erosion in our society. “If not before, then when thousands of people went out on the streets to protest against vaccines, it was undeniable that something is changing.”

How large has this mistrust of research and science become? And where does it come from? Guenther leads a joint project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), which investigates the trust relationship between science and the digitalized public.

Why is trust dwindling?

“In our data, too, we’re seeing indicators of a loss of trust,” confirms the communications scientist, who has been Professor of Communication Science with a focus on Crisis and Risk Communication in Digital Media Environments at LMU since October 2023.

His team is currently trying to figure out the causes and is investigating how trustworthiness and integrity can be conveyed in science communication. Which linguistic or visual indicators in a text, image, or video publication help convey these qualities?

“As soon as we’ve identified such indicators, we combine them with survey data to discover: Who actually consumes what media? How do these media outlets report on science? And over the course of time, can this tell us something about whether trust is increasing, remaining stable, or decreasing?”

Guenther plans to integrate the topic of AI, which is playing a growing role in the media sector, more fully into this research. It is expected that the use of AI will soon become more widespread in reporting – including perhaps on scientific topics. “Then we have to ask ourselves whether in such cases, we can apply the same criteria for assessing trustworthiness.”

Churning out science communication?

While such questions are becoming increasingly urgent, science journalism is in crisis: “Many people are losing their jobs in this area and many assignments are now being performed by all-rounders,” explains Guenther. “And for those still working in science journalism, the workload is often very heavy.”

This generates massive pressure, which has given rise to the problematic trend of ‘churnalism’. The name comes from the phrasal verb “to churn out,” meaning to produce large quantities of something very quickly. “Churnalism refers to a type of journalism that publishes content on a sort of assembly line without much quality assurance,” says the communications scientist. “In our team, we also call it copy-and-paste journalism.”

Guenther heads an international project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), which deals intensively with this phenomenon. In the project, researchers analyze press materials from several German universities and non-university research institutions.

They compare this scientific PR material against the subsequent reporting to measure the degree of concordance. The trend is already clearly recognizable: “Scientific press materials are increasingly being incorporated wholesale into media reporting. The problem is real, and we’re often shocked at the scale of it.”

Growing importance of trustworthiness in research communication

And so, communicating science to the public in a reliable and trustworthy manner has become more difficult for a variety of reasons. At the same time, many current political issues – quite a few being crises of international import – are strongly related to science. And high-quality science communication that is perceived as trustworthy helps voters form a well-founded opinion and makes them more likely to get behind necessary measures.

When Guenther began researching the use of scientific evidence in science journalism in 2010 as part of his doctorate, he often had to justify himself: “Every time I gave a presentation, I had to start out by explaining why the topic is relevant and why I’m studying it.” But from around 2017, climate change increasingly grabbed people’s attention, and then the pandemic hit. “Now I don’t need to explain to anyone why my research topics are relevant.”

Expanding horizons in crisis communication

After completing his doctoral thesis, Lars Guenther went abroad, choosing a rather unusual destination: South Africa. “In my field, it’s more common to go to the United States or other Western countries. Going to Africa raised a lot of eyebrows.”

When he looks back on this phase of his career today, he sees it as a formative experience. “I went to Peter Weingart, who is considered one of the leading sociologists of science worldwide.” The sociological perspective greatly expanded his horizons. “In this discipline, they have different ways of doing things than in communication science. We often just sat down together and discussed topics until the cows came home – this produced the most wonderful ideas.”

After two years in South Africa, Guenther returned to Germany. First he went to Hamburg and then, after a brief research residency in Israel, he came to the Department of Media and Communication (IfKW) at LMU. “The IfKW is the largest and most successful department in my field in Germany. Being here is a genuine privilege.”

This is not only because of the size and importance of the institute, but due to the collegial spirit of cooperation. “The colleagues here work together very closely with mutual respect and appreciation, celebrating each other’s successes. The focus is on our common goal, and everybody strives to achieve it together. This attitude is truly precious.”

Addressing the climate crisis with a focus on practical everyday solutions

One of the main focuses of Guenther’s work is communication related to climate change. His take-home message goes like this: Do not just foreground the catastrophic global dimensions of the crisis. “Although this catches people’s attention, it doesn’t necessarily encourage them to become active.”

It would be more effective, in his view, to also focus on the local level and concrete actions people can take. “The topics should be on relatable timescales and rooted in everyday life, so that people can identify with them from their own experience. In this way, it may be possible to reach people better and – if this is the goal – move them to adopt climate-friendly behaviors.”