Are Audiences Receptive to Humour in Popular Science Articles? an Exploratory Study Using Articles on Environmental Issues
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Are audiences receptive to humour in popular science articles? An exploratory study using articles on environmental issues Bruno Pinto and Hauke Riesch Abstract This study aims to test the perceptions of audiences to positive and non-aggressive humour in two popular articles. The themes were the effects of climate change on biodiversity and the over-exploitation of species. Both articles were published on-line at a Portuguese environmental site, and readers were asked to answer to an on-line survey. A total of 159 participants submitted their answers concerning their receptiveness to the humour, demographic information and comments. Results showed that the use of humour in popular articles is considered valuable for the majority of these readers, but different degrees of receptiveness suggest caution in its use. Keywords Environmental communication; Popularization of science and technology; Science and media Introduction Science communication books often stress that using humour is an important device through which to communicate with the audience [e.g. Bowater and Yeoman, 2012]. Though this is not always written up uncritically [Wilkinson and Weitkamp, 2016], this piece of advice rarely relies on evidence as to humour’s effectiveness in furthering the goals that science communicators might set themselves. Humour has started to be frequently used within science communication, an at least so far informally acknowledged recent trend [Leach, 2016]. Communicators hope to use humour to make science communication events or texts more enjoyable, accessible, to enhance learning about scientific concepts and to increase positive attitudes towards science and scientists. This trend manifests itself in various forms: in the UK, some established comedians such as Dara O’Briain, Lee Mack and Robin Ince have hosted popular science TV and radio shows (with Ince having recently won the Crick award in science journalism for his work on the BBC Radio 4 popular science magazine The Infinite Monkey Cage; Chortle [2016]). Scientists and scientific institutions have also started using comedy, with the “Bright Club” format at University College London — which trains researchers to perform short comedy routines about their research — having been widely imitated [Bultitude, 2011]. Article Journal of Science Communication 16(04)(2017)A01 1 In the US, comedians such as Brian Malow [Malow, 2015] use humour to communicate science, and science advisors at the successful TV situation comedy The Big Bang Theory likewise believe that the show can be used to educate about science [Saltzberg, 2010; Li and Orthia, 2016]. Humour also exists in other science communication formats, such as webcomics (PhD comics by Jorge Cham), popular science books (Ben Miller, Pratchett) and social media platforms (IFLS). Using humour in Previous researchers have tried to conceptualise the use of humour [Riesch, 2015] communication: or investigated the views of science communication performers and their audiences risks and [Pinto, Marçal and Vaz, 2015; Bore and Reid, 2014]. For example, recent research opportunities focused on a science stand-up comedy project in Portugal, in which both scientists-performers and audience members argued that this medium has the potential to make science more appealing [Pinto, Marçal and Vaz, 2015]. Nevertheless, issues such as the fact that the audiences were usually highly educated people, the peculiarities of the format implying a simplified view of science and the possibility of misinterpretation of messages due to the humour were also mentioned. Moreover, Bore and Reid [2014] studied the benefits and challenges of a satire stage play about climate change and concluded that it promoted audience engagement, but that the use of humour also encompassed risks such as the difficulty of catering for different humour preferences in the audiences, or “preaching to the choir”. Given that the topic was climate change and therefore a pressing social as well as scientific problem, they also warned that the use of humour may discourage the audience from taking action. Marsh [2013] contends that the constraints of comedy performances — where a fairly passive audience absorbs talk provided by a speaker on stage — may not be ideal for conducting two-way public engagement dialogues. While Marsh was explicitly talking about stand-up comedy, similar consideration would apply to popular science magazine articles. There is also extensive research about the use of humour in formal education, which spans over the last four decades. In this long endeavour, some authors have found that humour is good in the classroom and should be used by teachers [e.g. Garner, 2006; Brown and Tomlin, 1996; Kher, Molstad and Donahue, 1999; Huss, 2008] whereas others have argued it can have negative consequences [e.g. Lei, Cohen and Russler, 2010; Wanzer and Frymier, 1999; Wanzer et al., 2006]. To make sense of this apparently contradictory information, Banas et al. [2011] conducted an extensive literature review about the use of humour by teachers in school classes. These authors concluded that humour is potentially beneficial in formal education, but that this outcome largely depends on the type of humour and how it is used. More specifically, they found that positive, non-aggressive humour can aid learning and recall, whereas negative and aggressive humour has the opposite effect. The explanation for this result is probably related to the power imbalance between teachers and students in the classroom, in which the use of negative and aggressive humour by the teachers could further increase this disequilibrium [Holmes, 2000]. Studies specifically concerning the use of humour in science education are much less frequent and usually focus on positive, non-aggressive humour [e.g. Weitkamp and Burnet, 2007; Roth et al., 2011; Flannery, 1993]. According to Roth et al. [2011], one possible explanation for this reduced research is that science is considered a serious matter and, therefore, less prone to comedy. Nevertheless, these authors argued that laughter can help science classes become JCOM 16(04)(2017)A01 2 more life-like, and enhance the relationship between teachers and students. As another example, a study about a comic book used to explain basic principles of chemistry in primary classes of the United Kingdom concluded that humour was one of the most important factors contributing for the effectiveness of communication with this media [Weitkamp and Burnet, 2007]. Another relevant area to review is political humour, especially the more recent trends that have seen politicians become active participants in its production [Coleman, Kuik and Zoonen, 2009]. The parallel here is that, certainly in countries like the UK and Australia that place huge cultural value on a sense of humour, politicians have learned that participating in humorous dialogue — especially when self-deprecating — can improve their image as non-elitist, close to the public and approachable. Image improvement as non-elite and showing the human side of science is also a frequently claimed benefit of using humour in science communication. Though mostly seen as a positive development, these interventions are not without their risks. One of the worries articulated by some politicians in Coleman et al’s [2009] study was that of the loss of personal reputation and/or dignity of public office. Higgie [2015] argues that the “political co-option” of satire has shifted the accepted roles of permissible discourse among politicians but also politicized the discourse of satirists: “Politicians have gained a license to play, just as satirists have been licensed to provide serious political commentary” (p. 73). However, she cautions that, as a consequence, politicians can hijack the cultural status of comedy for their own political ends and thus end up “damaging the often-celebrated democratic potential of satire” (p. 74; see also Basu [2014]). If in line with most current opinions, in the field we conceive of science communication and public engagement as a two-way democratic dialogue; this points to a potential risk similar to the one highlighted above by Marsh [2013]. There are many different types of humour, ranging from slapstick to puns, and it can have various targets, from racist and disparaging humour to self-deprecating humour. It can be fairly benign or aggressive, though there are debates as to whether all forms of humour are in some way aggressive [see Martin, 2010]. Traditional humour theory divides into three main explanations of why people find something funny [see Billig, 2005]: relief theory which sees humour as a release of tensions, superiority theory which holds humour as arising from our need to feel superior over others and incongruity theory which sees humour as arising from the unexpected juxtaposition of unrelated concepts. Studies of audience reception have shown reactions to humour and comedy to be influenced by the audiences’ cultural capital [Friedman, 2014], nationality [Bore, 2010] and ethnicity [Weaver and Bradley, 2016], all of which modify what type of humour people will find acceptable and/or funny. There are thus several risks that can be associated with the use of humour in science communication. Different types of audience may react differently and interpret the often polysemic message of a humorous communication in multiple ways. Humour can be interpreted as aggressive even when not meant to be, or dull and “trying too hard” if effort is expended not to be aggressive; what may please one audience might