INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8009321

M y e r s , R o g e r A l le n

THE TRAINING OF SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS

The Ohio State University PH.D. 1979

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England

Copyright 1980 by Myers, Roger Allen All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark .

1. Glossy photographs __ 2. Colored illustrations______3. Photographs with dark background______‘4. Illustrations are poor copy ______5. Drint shows through as there is text on both sides of page _ 6. Indistinct, broken or small print onseveral pagesl/ throughout

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in______spine 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct______print 9. Page(s) _____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author______10. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows______11. Poor carbon copy______12. Not original copy, several pages withblurred ______type 13. Appendix pages are poor______copy 14. Original copy with light ______type 15. Curling and wrinkled pages______16. Other

University M icnSilm s International

300 N Z = = = RD.. ANN AR30R Ml 48106‘313) 761-4700 THE TRAINING OF SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

by

Roger Allen Myers, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1979

Reading Committee: Approved by

Professor I. Keith Tyler

Professor Alfred C. Clarke

Professor Robert W. Wagner Adviser Faculty of Educational Foundations and Research ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the advice and assistance of his adviser, Professor I. Keith Tyler, and committee members, Professors

Alfred C. Clarke and Robert W. Wagner; the cooperation of the science writers, journalism educators, scientists and medical researchers, and newspaper editors who participated in the study's surveys; and the assistance of Hovey Cowles and the other staff members of the Ohio State

Research and Evaluation Consulting Service.

ii VITA

September 26, 1942 ...... Born, Melmore, Ohio

1961-1964 ...... Service in U.S. Army

1969 ...... B.A. in Journalism, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1970 ...... M.A. in Journalism, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1970-1972 ...... Instructor, Journalism Department, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1971 (Summer) ...... Reporter-Photographer, Globe-News (Newspaper) Publishing Company, Amarillo, Texas 1972-1976 ...... Odd jobs in Columbus, Ohio, and work at Ohio State University to help pay for graduate study costs 1974 (January to June) ...... Visiting Instructor, Journalism Department, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1976-197 7 ...... Visiting Instructor of Journalism and Photojournalism, Speech and Theatre Department, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon 1977- ...... Assistant Professor of Journalism, Communication Arts Department, Calumet College, Whiting, Indiana

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Educational Communication

Studies in Educational Communication. Professor I. Keith Tyler

Studies in Photography and Cinema. Professor Robert W. Wagner

Studies in Sociology. Professor Alfred C. Clarke

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 1 Introduction: Background of the Study ...... 1 Need for This S t u d y ...... 2 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e ...... 5 S u m m a r y ...... 48

II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY ...... 53 Nature of the S t u d y ...... 53 H y p o t h e s e s ...... 54 Methodology...... 55 1. S o u r c e s ...... 55 2. The Samples ...... 57 3. The Questionnaires ...... 59 4. Stages I and I I ...... 63 5. The Curriculum M o d e l ...... 64 6. Conclusions...... 65 S u m m a r y ...... 65

III. CARRYING OUT THE STUDY ...... 66 The First Stage ...... 66 The Questionnaire...... 67 The S a m p l e ...... 70 Administering the Questionnaire ...... 71 First Stage Results ...... 72 Conclusions Concerning the First Stage Survey .... 85 The Second S t a g e ...... 89 Introduction ...... 89 The Questionnaire...... 90 The S a m p l e ...... 94 The Mailings ...... 97 Second Stage Results ...... 97

iv Page Demographic D a t a ...... 99 A Composite Picture of Second Stage Respond­ ents Based on Demographic D a t a ...... 107 Answers to Survey Questions ...... 108 (i) Background Education ...... 109 (ii) Background Experiences ...... 115 (iii) Supervised or Other Experiences ...... 120 (iv) Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters ...... 125 (v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science Reporters ...... 132 (vi) Best Teachers of Science W r i t e r s ...... 139 (vii) Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science Reporters ...... 144 (viii) College Level for Science News Writing and Reporting Instruction ...... 146 (ix) Recommended Science Writing Workshops Length . . ; ...... 150 (x) Recommended Time Length for Science Writing Internship or Apprenticeship . . . 150 (xi) Ranked Importance of Teaching Science News Reporting ...... 153 Second Stage Summary ...... 156 Computer Statistical Analyses of Responses to the Second Stage Survey ...... 157 Homogeneity of Groups by Occupation ...... 157 General Reliability of Survey Questions and Options . . 160 Differences between Occupational Groups for Second Stage Questionnaire Sections ...... 162 Analysis of Time of Return of the Second Stage Questionnaires ...... 164 Conclusions from the Computer Analyses ...... 165 Second Stage Inferences, Interpretations and Conclusions...... 166 (i) Background Education ...... 167 (ii) Background (Work) Experiences ...... 168 (iii) Supervised or Other Experiences ...... 170 (iv) Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters ...... 172 (v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science News Reporters ...... 176 (vi) Best Teachers of Science News Writing Courses or Workshops ...... 177 (vii) Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science Reporters ...... 181 (viii) Other Questions ...... 183 Overall Conclusions ...... 183

v Chapter Page

IV. PRINCIPLES AND A CURRICULUM MODEL FOR DEVELOPING SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS REPORTERS ...... 186

P r i n c i p l e s ...... 186 The Curriculum M o d e l ...... 189 Rationale for the Curriculum Model ...... 191 Outlines of Science Reporting Courses...... 198 1. Introduction to Science News Reporting ...... 198 2. Science News Reporting and Writing # 1 ...... 201 3. Science News Reporting and Writing # 2 ...... 203 4. Science Writing Internships and Apprenticeships . 205 S u m m a r y ...... 207

V. CONCLUSIONS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ...... 208

Summary of the S t u d y ...... 208 Conclusions Related to the Basic Hypotheses ...... 211 Conclusions Related to Adequacy of This Study ...... 213 Basic Recommendations of the S t u d y ...... 215 Recommendations in View of the Present Situation . . . 216 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 217

APPENDIXES

A. First Stage Survey Letter of Transmittal and Questionnaire...... 220

B. Second Stage Survey Letter of Transmittal and Questionnaire...... 224

C. Second Stage Survey Raw D a t a ...... 230

FOOTNOTES ...... 241

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 261 LIST OF TABLES

Page

First Stage Response Rate ...... 73

First Stage Demographic Data ...... 75

First Stage Respondents' College Major Areas ...... 76

Media Coverage of Science and Medical News ...... 79

Quality of Physical Science and Medical News Coverage in the Media ...... 82

Person Who Should Cover Science News ...... 84

Need for More Science Reporters ...... 86

Second Stage Response Rate ...... 98

Second Stage Response Time ...... 100

Second Stage Respondents' Sex ...... 101

Second Stage Respondents' Ages ...... 102

Second Stage Respondents' Education ...... 104

Second Stage Respondents' College Major Fields of Study ...... 105

Suggested Background Education (Average Weighted Scores). . 111

Background Education by Group (Average Weighted Scores) . . 112

Other College Courses Suggested as Background Education . . 113

Suggested Background Experiences (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 117

Suggested Background Experiences by Group (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 118

Other Suggested Background Experiences ...... 119

vii Table Page

20. Other Experiences Suggested for Potential Science Reporters...... 122

21. Other Experiences Suggested for Potential Science Reporters by Respondent Group ...... 123

22. Suggested Competencies for Potential Science Reporters (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 127

23. Suggested Competencies for Potential Science Reporters by Respondent Group (Average Weighted Scores) . 128

24. Suggested Competencies for Potential Science Reporters by Respondent Group (Average Weighted Scores) . 129

25. Competencies for Teachers of Potential Science Reporters (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 135

26. Competencies for Teachers of Potential Science Reporters by Respondent Groups (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 136

27. Competencies for Teachers of Potential Science Reporters by Respondent Groups (Average Weighted Scores) ...... 137

28. Ranked Best Teachers of Science Reporters (Average Rank Scores) ...... 141

29. Ranked Best Teachers of Science Reporters by Respondent Group (Average Rank Scores) ...... 142

30. Respondents Who Suggested a Combination of Persons Best to Teach Science News Reporting ...... 143

31. Ranked Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science News Reporters (Average Rank Scores) .... 147

32. Ranked Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science News Reporters by Respondent Groups (Average Rank Scores) ...... 148

33. Suggested Other Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science News Reporters ...... 149

34. Suggested Level for Science News Reporting Instruction . . 151

35. Recommended Science Writing Workshop Length ...... 152

36. Recommended Science Writing Internship or Apprentice­ ship Length ...... 154

viii Table Page

37. Ranked Importance of Teaching Science News Reporting . . . 155

38. Homogeneity of Respondent Groups (Correlation Coeffi­ cients of + .25 or Greater) ...... 159

39. Homogeneity of Respondent Groups (Correlation Coeffi­ cients of + .001 or G r e a t e r ) ...... 161

40. Reliability Analysis for Questionnaire Sections (i) to (v): Indicated Are the Number of Items in Each Section, Reliability Coefficients, and Cases Used in Analysis . . 163

41. Background Education Courses Ranked by Respondent Groups: Shown Are Top Choices above 1.50 Average Weighted Score Cut-Off Point ...... 169

42. Background Experiences Ranked by Respondent Groups: Shown Are Top Choices above 1.50 Average Weighted Score Cut-Off Point ...... 171

43. Supervised or Other Experiences Ranked by Respondent Groups: Shown Are Top Choices above 1.50 Average Weighted Score Cut-Off Point ...... 173

44. Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters: Shown Are Ranked Top Choices above 1.50 Average Weighted Score with Average Weighted Scores (in Parentheses) by Groups ...... 175

45. Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science Writers: Shown Are Top Choices above 1.50 Average Weighted Scores (AWS) Ranked, and AWS (in Parentheses) by G r o u p s ...... 178

46. "Best" Teachers of Science News Writing Courses or Workshops: Listed Are All with Average Rank Scores below 3 . 0 0 ...... 180

47. "Best" Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science News Reporters: Shown Are Options with Average Rank Scores below 3 . 0 0 ...... 182

ix CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction: Background of the Study

It is increasingly evident that science and technology can and do play vital roles in making our lives safer, easier, more comfortable

and more intellectually exciting. Because of them we are less prone to disease and starvation. Yet no longer can we easily live alone on rural farms, isolated from the rest of mankind. Cities and complex living conditions are the rule.

But science and technology may also contribute to the long-term environmental hazards of air, water, land and noise pollution. Thus it is important that the citizen of the world know what is happening in the fields of science and how they affect his/her life. The dissemina­ tion of factual information is required as well as the making available of articles or programs that tell what such information means or what its relevance to the individual is.

Science news reporting is one way of transmitting scientific, environmental and technical information to the general population via the mass media. There are other ways, of course. Education in school systems can transmit such information, but formal schooling is often restricted to 12 years or less during an individual's childhood and adolescence, and is frequently limited to easily taught or learned skills. Colleges can transmit such information, but they are also

1 2

usually limited to a certain age group or category of persons, and

few people return to college to update their knowledge and understand­

ings. Study groups can transmit such information, but those groups

are usually totally voluntary in our society, and are self-limited to

those people who already possess an interest or knowledge in the area

studied.

Many people after leaving school or college rarely open a book

again— but most will regularly read newspapers and magazines, or watch

television newscasts. Thus, the media represent some of the best cur­

rently available channels for transmitting scientific information to

the public.

Need for This Study

Yet, how much scientific or environmental news does the American population read in newspapers and magazines or watch on television?

Do media editors provide the right kinds of information presented in understandable ways? Are more science reporters needed? If so, what qualifications should they possess? How should they ensure that they get accurate, complete news stories? These questions and others can be at least partially answered through a study of the available literature dealing with science writing. A review of such literature follows this section.

But other questions pertaining to how best to train such science reporters remain. And those questions are what the other sections of this study will attempt to answer.

For our purposes here, "science" reporting refers primarily to the

"hard," physical sciences rather than the social and behavioral sciences. Included, then, within the "science" category would be physics, chem­

istry, geology, astronomy, biology, and their various subdivisions

and/or related fields, and medicine. Excluded by that definition would

be psychology, sociology, political science, economics, anthropology,

and related fields that are more culturally-oriented.

Generally, the "hard" or physical sciences allow one with mechan­

istic laboratory equipment to conduct or observe scientific phenomena,

and expect to measure results similarly or identically in succeeding

experiments. The social or behavioral sciences, however, are more sub­ jective, and/or are more dependent on a particular group or individual being studied. The social science experiments can usually not be as tightly controlled.

So when we refer in this study to science, scientists, or "re­ search," we have in mind that research and those innovative developments that affect the physical world directly— and the society or culture more indirectly. "Technology" and technical research refer to the practical or applied uses of scientific findings and developments.

The writer’s interest in the problems involved with supplying educated or trained science and medical reporters developed over a period of years. An interest in science and science fiction, a bountiful curiosity about anything hidden or unknown, and a sometimes over-active imagination have "plagued" him from an early age. He's seen the posi­ tive, as well as the negative, possibilities and potentials of scientif­ ic and technological ideas and innovations. He has often wondered why others, especially politicians and those who control the allocation of resources, don’t see such potentials as well. Many of their current 4

decisions are not based on available and relevant scientific and

technical information.

For example, efficient and economical mass transit or freight trans­

portation systems to move people and materials are a much-needed innova­

tion today. They could be easily designed, built and operated at today's

levels of technological development. Yet politicians and the public

continue to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into obsolete, ineffi­

cient and dangerous automobiles and trucks, as well as oil products,

roadways, and highway police and other related service agencies and industries. Suburban houses, made possible by the automobile, take up many times the land space and materials per person housed than do urban apartment complexes. Why? The resources might be used more efficiently, especially when one considers the dwindling deposits of iron ore, oil, and the fertile farm land covered by sprawling new houses and the road­ ways to reach them. Millions of people starve to death yearly else­ where in the world for lack of food— food which might have been easily and cheaply grown on the fertile farm land now covered by houses, stores and roads.

These problems involve social, political and economic choices, of course. But the public and politicians very often operate without knowledge of all of the possible options available to them. Science and technology may help provide the bases for some of those additional options.

One (perhaps idealistic) goal of this study, then, is to increase the amount of science news in the media by increasing the number of individuals well equipped to find new science and medical developments, translate them into easily understood language, and present them

interestingly to the public. Maybe, over time, people will begin to

consider entire ecological systems of the world when solving their

"supply and demand" problems, and their places within those systems.

Review of the Literature

Recent research and authoritative writings reveal that in some cases science and medical news reporting in the American media is very good. In the majority of the media, however, the quality and quantity of such coverage could be greatly improved.

Although a few science and medical news reporters were trained specifically for their jobs, most were not. Only in the past few years has science-writing training become available at scattered schools and colleges around the country, and the quality and emphases of such training have varied as well. Some training is probably quite good, provided by experienced instructors and utilizing quality products.

Other training varies considerably, and the subject matter can concern agriculture, home economics, or even public relations! Thus educational standards may have to be established before such training may be con­ sidered sufficient for potential science writers.

Typically an individual becomes a "science reporter" because "no one else volunteered," or because he had a few science courses in high school or college, or he covered a few science news stories in succession for a newspaper and thus became the local "expert." After serving as the science reporting "expert" for a while, he might then move on to become a "science editor" for a publication or other kind of news agency. Most media editors, however, have had little formal science 6

training or education and limited means of learning the kinds and

quality of science news stories or reports their readers/viewers/

listeners want.

Some newspapers, magazines, and radio and television programs now

devote time, space and effort to covering adequately many science

developments. Studies by Sorenson, Funkhouser, and Krieghbaum show,

however, that such coverage varies vastly from issue to issue, program

to program, month to month, year to year.''" Follow-up coverage of once-

mentioned ideas and innovations is also often spotty at best. Editors

may feel (often perhaps justly) that their particular readers/viewers/

listeners are not really interested in any specialized science informa­

tion, or become saturated with it and "turn of" additional information.

The many editors, reporters, and other gatekeepers in the communication 2 chain affect information content and its form. One may also ask whether people learn directly from such science news information or 3 if an opinion leader is necessary to "legitimize" the information.

Science writers often stumbled into the field by chance rather

than by their own planning and design, according to a survey Hillier

Krieghbaum published in 1940. Some had a background or interest in science, while others, after many science coverage assignments, eventu­ ally became recognized "experts." Of 31 science writers surveyed, 23 had a bachelor's degree and 5 had an advanced degree. Before they became science writers, most worked as general assignment reporters; a few did some kind of science work. They had been science writers for 2 to 39 years. In the cases of a majority of science writers the father had been

in one of the professions, but very few of the parents had been scientists.

An early (1947) survey of "psychological barriers" to the communi­

cation of information was compiled by Herbert Hyman and Paul B.

Sheatsley. They named five "reasons why information campaigns fail"

as: (1) "There exists a hard core of chronic 'know-nothings'" who are

uninformed, do not seek new information about issues, events and ideas,

and are thus "harder to reach." (2) Usually, only the "interested

people acquire the most information" and are the most motivated to learn new things or ideas. (3) "People seek information congenial to prior

attitudes." People with prior exposure to information usually react different attitudinally than do people becoming informed for the first

time. (4) "People interpret the same information differently," due to previous psychological conditioning, experiences and thought patterns.

(5) "Information does not necessarily change attitudes."'*

In a 1955 analysis of an Advertising Research Foundation readership study of 130 newspapers from 1939 to 1950, Charles E. Swanson found that the "10 most-read categories" of news stories (out of over 40) included one labelled "science-invention." More of the articles placed in this category were read by males than by females, but females tended to read more articles the researcher labelled "health-safety." Males tended to

"read" more photographs placed in the "science-invention" category, but females again "read" or scanned more photographs placed in the "health- safety" category. Swanson concluded that because photographs had a higher "total mean readership" than did news stories mentioned in the study, editors should emphasize more visual aids such as photographs, picture stories and the like. The "most-read" categories of news stories (including "science-invention") should be emphasized more, at the ex-

pense of the "less-read" categories.

Jerome Ellison and Franklin T. Gosser compared non-fiction magazine

articles for three-month periods in 1947 and 1957. Of nine general

interest magazines studied, including Life, Saturday Evening Post and

Reader’s Digest, "no . . . magazine chalked up a gain for science"

coverage. They even found that the Atlantic "... shifted from its

’47 emphasis on science to a '57 concern with overseas events."^

Americans get "considerable news about science" but "want more stories of this kind . . .," according to a 1957 survey of 1,919

Americans, conducted for the National Association of Science Writers.

Most science news is received via newspapers and much such information is remembered. "Americans have favorable ideas about science," and the most avid science readers "have the most favorable attitudes toward science." Although many people surveyed "tended to be suspicious of scientists," the "public's picture of the men of science was mixed."

Only 12 percent of the people interviewed blamed scientists for the bad or harmful effects of science, while others scattered the blame among g "politicians," "evil people" and others.

People surveyed in 1957 and 1958 in the United States generally felt that "the world is better off because of science," according to

Stephen B. Withey in his summary of the National Association of Science

Writers study mentioned above. Young people, a good science background, and/or higher educational background tended to be positively correlated with interest in science and science information-seeking. Men tended to be more interested in non-medical science, while women were more interested in medical news. Readers tended to be interested in and

were more likely to read science news if it were treated as ". . .

actuality, or reporting an accomplished fact rather than a hypothesis

or future possibility; specifically rather than generality or abstract­

ness; and relevance of the scientific event to human behavior or wel­

fare."9

In a 1960 analysis of the same survey, James W. Swinehart and

Jack M. McLeod concluded that: "Our findings indicate that wide circu­

lation of news about science is not likely to have much effect on

reading habits, attitudes toward scientific topics, or use of a scien­

tific frame of reference in interpreting news events. In order for a greater flow of news to increase public understanding as well as awareness of scientific work, a knowledge of the distribution of atti­

tudes, information and media-usage habits in the population must be used in channeling science news by appropriate means to specific audiences."

According to Swinehart and McLeod, (1) "... The public can be made aware of such events (as Sputnik I) in a very short time ..."

(2) Events are "... perceived in a scientific frame of reference" very rarely; (3) ". . . A large proportion of the public, perhaps a majority, seems to have a sharply drawn and favorable— if vastly oversimplified— idea of what science is and what scientists are like ..." (4) The

". . . overall patterns of media use are not likely to be affected by a scientific event." (5) Men show a ". . . greater interest in science" compared to women. (6) ". . . The number of media used . . . was shown to remain strongly related to attribution to a scientific purpose when 10 education was controlled." 10

In analyzing the effect of the reporting of Sputnik I on American

and world public opinion by 1960, as reflected in public opinion sur­

veys, Gabriel A. Almond concluded that "... the demonstration of

Soviet satellite superiority represents a significant foreign policy

victory for the Soviet Union." This has (1) "... shaken confidence

in American technological and military strength and hence sharpened

doubts as to the wisdom of alliance with the United States," and

(2) ". . .By demonstrating the delivery capabilities of modern warfare

it has brought even further into question the utility of conventional

security arrangements, weapons systems, and military deployments on the

part of powers who do not possess these capabilities. ..." Public

awareness of Sputnik I was generally "extraordinarily high" in the

countries surveyed.^"*"

Donald N. Michael, in a 1960 analysis of the results of six Amer­

ican surveys following Sputnik I, concluded that "... the opinions held by Americans regarding this first step into space were sometimes

inconsistent, occasionally rich in non sequiturs, and frequently illog­

ical." The opinions "... did not indicate unanimous psychological

shock or national loin girding, as the press and many issue makers have

insisted."^

Since Sputnik I, science news has been perceived as more important

than it was previously and is getting more media coverage, according to a 1960 report by Hillier Krieghbaum. But problems in science news

coverage remain: scientific developments must be "translated" into

terms easily understood by the average reader; new techniques of pre­ senting information must be developed; science reporters must have more 11

background and training in the sciences— they must become teachers to

the public; science reporters must learn to discriminate between genuine

"breakthroughs" and public relations releases seeking publicity for 13 scientists and institutions.

Science reporters should be trained in "one or more of the sciences

or allied fields of engineering," the history of science, and journalis­

tic techniques, according to a 1956 article by J. H. Wilson. They should also know how to use electronic communications and recording equipment, and other technical equipment, so as to "actually enhance rather than snarl up (the) flow of information." Graduate courses should include scientific research, systematic logic, mass communication media, general philology, analysis of technical communications systems, library science, printing and graphic arts, and cost accounting. Thesis topics should be related to one of the many problems involved in science or tech­ nical reporting.^

In another study of 62 science writers reported on in 1957 by Lee

Z. Johnson, respondents generally recommended a "liberal education" for future science writers. They also endorsed taking "courses in the physical and natural sciences including laboratory work (56), pre­ medical and public health courses (12), English composition (21), journalism (8), and other fields. Potential science writers, respond­ ents suggested, should have curiosity, ". . . a ’driving* wide interest and liking for science," a "sense of accuracy, a critical and doubting attitude, patience and a willingness to dig for facts." A science writer must be "... aware of his social responsibility, . . . possess maturity, conscience, integrity and an ability to analyze and evaluate 12

scientific facts in an unprejudiced and unemotional manner." Respond­

ents were of mixed opinions about whether science writers should

specialize in one area or field, or be a "generalist." Experience in general news writing was recommended. Science writers enjoyed their contacts with their primary sources— medical doctors and scientists— and also used other sources including "scientific periodicals, govern­ ment publications, non-scientific publications and publicity releases.

Few colleges and universities in the United States had journalism departments that provided much-needed medical or science writing courses or programs, according to a 1960 article by Israel Light. Medical science writing majors were offered at the universities of Illinois,

Missouri and Oklahoma. Undergraduate science or technical writing majors were offered at Columbia University, Simmons College (in Boston),

Carnegie Institute of Technology, and Colorado State University, and graduate programs were offered at the University of Wisconsin and

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (in Troy, N.Y.). Light suggested that more money and staff members be used in more universities to help train people to write about science, technology and engineering developments.

The National Science Foundation or the Ford, Edison, Lasker, Sloan or

Rockefeller foundations could be approached for money to be used in developing and maintaining "an experimental science and technical writ­ ing curriculum." Conferences should be held to discuss and improve such training methods and should include representatives from groups in science, journalism, government, industry, education, medicine, and

. writing organizations. 16 13

An understanding of the basic sciences and the ability to trans­

late the languages of science for the layman are essential requirements

of good science writers, according to John Foster, Jr. In his 1963 book,

Science Writer’s Guide, Foster stressed the importance of "clear writing"

to get scientific ideas across to the reader. Among other things he

suggests are: keeping the "number of ideas per sentence low," writing

"fairly short paragraphs," keeping sentences short, choosing "the right word," using proper analogies, defining simply new terms used, showing a new idea's significance, asking experts for help when needed, and

treating scientists humanely and with understanding.^

University "training for science writers must be individually tailored," according to a 1963 article by Pierre C. Fraley. "... There is no simple, pat answer to the training of science writers. There are many varied approaches, some experimental, some traditional." Journal­ ism professors differ on whether science writing courses should be placed at the undergraduate or graduate level, or even if such courses should be taught at all. Among the universities having medical or science writing courses in 1963 were Michigan State University, New York

University, West Virginia University, and Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Northwestern, Wisconsin and Columbia universities. Additional seminars 18 and short courses in science writing were conducted at other places.

"Science writers now know that the public has an interest in science but at the same time has a deep ignorance concerning some of its basic concepts," according to a 1963 article by Earl Ubell. Cur­ rently, newspapers and magazines "do not develop deep abstract scien­ tific concepts in the vast public within a short period of time. They 14

can do so (only) in certain subject areas where there is an intimate

concern, for example in medicine." To help overcome this ignorance,

science writers must "make definitions organic to the story." More

drawings, pictures and "illustrative art material" may also help define

terms or ideas more clearly, Ubell says. He forecasts "a quite rapid

advance in the development of science reporting in newspapers and

magazines" in the United States and a "tremendous increase in science -.19 reporters.

Television in the United States is now primarily used for enter­

tainment purposes and we are faced with the challenge of using it

creatively for presenting science news and information, according to a

1963 article by E. G. Sherburne, Jr. Viewers do not learn science information merely because a program is educational; they also learn

from medical shows, melodramas and even from science fiction presenta­

tions. Sherburne says that "6 percent of the total prime time (is) being devoted to some aspect of science," and 76 percent of that time is

"devoted to medicine and psychology." But the science programming available on television in 1963 reflects "a limited point of view," usually a medical or hospital setting. Scientific subject matter should be presented in a more dramatic and honest manner by writers, producers, directors and actors better to reflect the "age of science" in which we , . 20 live.

William E. Small's 1964 master's thesis, "The Training of the Sci­ ence Writer," completed at Michigan State University, was unavailable for this study. It included the results of a survey of science writers 21 and their educational backgrounds. 15

Good editors are needed today who can "help interpret science to readers," according to Harold K. Mintz in a 1961 Nieman Reports article.

Mintz defined editing as "changing someone's writing to make it better and easier for the reader to understand." A good writer, he said, must also help ensure that the article is accurate. To help make it inter­ esting to the reader, the article should include a "you-angle," and may use comparisons, typographical aids, anecdotes, and definitions of new 22 terms to help get ideas across.

A 1962 study that compared 69 newspapers in the United States found more coverage of science news than did previous studies. (This was after the 1957 Sputnik and the beginning of the "Space-Race," of course.)

For two dates, January 10, 1947, and January 18, 1962, Columbia Journal­ ism Review staffers found that, "The most striking new element was 23 science . . ."in the 1962 newspapers studied.

Although the public, scientists and newspeople may share similar conceptions of science news, editors may often have a false idea of

"what the public wants." Thus science information presented in the mass media may not greatly appeal to most of the readers or viewers, accord­ ing to research studies reported on by Percy H. Tannenbaum in 1963.

Other studies pointed out the need for "translating" science terms so that the average reader/viewer could understand them. Tannenbaum recog­ nized "the need to train more good science writers . . .," but did not suggest training procedures or whether such writers would be mutually 24 acceptable to media executives and scientists.

Hillier Krieghbaum, in an introduction to a special science report­ ing section in the Summer, 1963, issue of Journalism Quarterly, claimed 16

that "Science news reporting is probably the most rapidly expanding

segment in the communications of the early I960’s." He predicted that

science news coverage would increase and improve in the future and that 25 more people would be reached with science news.

"International communication of science information" will help

build a "world community," Rhoda Metraux claimed in the same special

1963 Journalism Quarterly section. A "world culture" is emerging now

"which has been made possible by science and the application of scien­

tific knowledge, and which depends for its development on a world-wide

raising of the level of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge."

But, at the same time, "the protection of the world's resources is

dependent on a world-wide dissemination of knowledge and acceptance

of good (conservation) practices ..." We must "avoid building ob- 26 solescence into new systems. ..."

News should be presented in a "humanistic" context, according to a 1963 Nieman Reports article by John C. Merrill. Rather than striving to quantify and "de-humanize" news and research data, information should be compiled and presented that would aid in creating a "brotherhood" of man instead of cliques with specialized knowledge. Scientific advance­ ment must be accompanied by social consciousness and responsibility. 27 The "future belongs not to machines, but to men ..."

"Scientist, science writer, reader and non-reader groups . . .

(give) essentially the same . . . (results in) judging science news stories," according to a 1963 study report by Kenneth G. Johnson. But editors.use different factors and differing frames of reference in judging science news stories than do the above groups. Johnson had each 17 group of people listed above "read several science news stories, then rate each one on a series of 25 semantic differential scales." The editor group rated the most important factor of a story as "newsworthi­ ness," which "corresponds most closely to the excitement or sensational­ ism dimension (the least important dimension) for the other four groups," he n o t e d . ^

"Science information has not been internalized" by many people; thus they make little attempt to learn science news even if it is available, according to a 1963 report published by Eduward J. Robinson.

A 1960 survey found that "many people feel that they do not understand science (and scientists)." Their behavior is affected only slightly by science, even though science has greatly changed their world. For example, even though research has shown the use of car seat belts to be good, smoking bad, and polio shots good, many people still refuse to choose the action which would probably prolong their lives. Robinson suggests that "... Much more research must be conducted on how we can more adequately communicate concepts or ideas as distinct from reporting about tangible objects or products." Other methods besides mass media- connected ones should be used to help convey science news. And, "... audience research should be undertaken to discover what kinds of people are most amenable to science news and most likely to understand and be influenced by it." Also, more special science news reporters are needed 29 and should be trained.

Science writers should pay more attention to covering basic scien­ tific research and connecting current research to previous discoveries than they had been doing, Victor Cohn suggested in 1965. More 18 well-trained science writers and editors are needed nationwide to cover more of the "big stories of our time." The spirit of scientific inquiry and discovery is hampered in its translation and transferrence, however, when reporters must go through public relations people and other "middle­ men" to get information from scientists, Cohn complained. Other limits to the freedom of science writers to pursue their stories also abound, such as requiring administrative clearance of a reporter, requiring that an article be "proof read" for accuracy and possible "errors," and similar forms of censorship.^

"Science reporting is becoming more expert, accurate and interest­ ing," Hillier Krieghbaum reported in 1965. Although science reporting was then the "in" thing, mostly because of the Sputnik I and subsequent satellites, more "play" was also being given to other science news stories. In a New York University Journalism Department survey of 166

U.S. daily newspapers, "about half" of the editors queried said that they "were using at least twice as much space for science news" in 1965 compared to 1957 before Sputnik. Over 30 percent of the editors "said they had increased news space allocations by approximately 50 percent," and the remaining 20 percent or so of the editors said they were using 31 either the same or slightly more space for science news.

Although the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) does provide some helpful services for the press, they could do more, Louis Alexander learned from a 1965 and 1966 survey of reporters covering space shots. The public relations staff at NASA did provide a useful press kit and flight plan, but (1) little information is given out when something goes wrong; (2) public relations personnel often 19

fail to give well-based technical answers to questions; (3) it is

difficult to ask more than one question at a press conference or pursue

topics adequately there; (4) access is limited to information the public 32 relations people want to give out.

What is "science news" may often be confused with other kinds of news stories, as Hillier Krieghbaum pointed out in 1966. For example,

space flights give reporters the potential for writing many different kinds of stories, from technical descriptions of rockets and orbits to reactions of astronauts' families to the flights. In these cases, the

former type of news stories should be more aptly considered "science news" than the latter type of "human interest" news stories. Yet

different newspapers and reporters will often confuse the content of such stories and give the same ones different "play." Krieghbaum notes that science news stories are also often educational and may precede 33 future textbooks dealing with the same subjects.

Medical doctors and researchers often learn of new developments in their fields through the mass media, Donald L. Shaw and Paul Van

Nevel reported. In a 1966 survey of 144 University of Wisconsin Medical

School faculty members, the two found that 92 percent of the respondents read of new research developments in "newspapers and general magazines such as Time or Newsweek ..." Only 2 percent got new information from the broadcast media and 6 percent from books and more specialized 34 magazines.

Today's science writer must first of all be a good reporter, according to Frank Carey in a 1966 Nieman Reports article. In addition, however, he should have a good background in the sciences, especially 20

his specialty, if any, and know where to find relevant background and

story information as well as specialists in scientific and medical areas.

And, of course, the science news stories must be well written— enough so

that some of the "excitement, drama . . . beauty and wonder . . . of 35 science and research" are transferred to the reader.

The university-affiliated science writer plays the roles of

"investigative reporter, matchmaker, and freelancer," according to

William K. Stuckey in a 1966 Nieman Reports article. Universities con­

ducting research often have science writers to convey, via the media,

details of the research to the public, primarily taxpayers and funding

agency members. As an investigative reporter, the university science writer must track down scientists and medical doctors with research in

progress or completed, and check out isolated details relevant to the

research so that accurate stories can be written. As a matchmaker,

the university science writer must translate the researcher's words

and work into language and ideas easily understood by the public and bring the scientist, public and press together as well. As a freelancer,

the university science writer should attempt to place his science news stories or public relations releases in as many media outlets as ... 36 possible.

Should reporters become dependent on public relations departments

in government and industry for science news information, they may often m i s s all or parts of important stories, according to James A. Skardon.

For example, after the Apollo space capsule fire of January 27, 1967,

in which three American astronauts died, reporters were unable to find

out the causes of and details about the fire. The National Aeronautics 21

and Space Administration (NASA) effectively "blacked out" important

relevant information and reporters were able to learn details of the

fire much later only after a lot of investigative "digging" and a Con­

gressional investigation revealed the facts. Skardon suggests that reporters covering space shots had become too complacent, and allowed

NASA public relations people to furnish much of the data and/or leads for stories. The reporters tended to play up the easily obtainable human-interest news of the space shots more than the more-difficult-to- obtain scientific or technical aspects. Reporters became closer to

NASA than to their "publics." Skardon recommends writing more investi­ gative science and technical news stories in the future and giving less emphasis to "human interest" stories and public relations "blurbs"

37 about the heroes and heroines of the "Space Age."

Sometimes, however, a public relations bureau or release provides the reporters or public with its first information about a new scientif­ ic idea or discovery. For example, when Dr. Arthur Kornberg of Stanford

University's School of Medicine and his researchers synthesized DNA

(Deoxyribonucleic Acid) in 1967, the school's news bureau sent out a press release to that effect and set up Dr. Kornberg's press conference.

A report of the DNA synthesis became nationwide news shortly thereafter, and President Lyndon B. Johnson even referred to it in a speech at the time. (Of course the news release was also self-serving: Stanford had received millions of dollars for such research from the National Insti­ tute of Health and the National Science Foundation— and hoped to receive 38 more in the future.) 22

"Science is where the action is" for freelance science writers and

editors, according to Theodore Berland. Such writers "... bring with

(their) name certain guarantees of quality and professionalism ..."

They are "turned to when there is a special area or problem, or a project

with a tight deadline, or when it is far more expeditious to assign it

outside than to start an argument inside, among the staff." Such people

are usually magazine writers, but also write for the other media as 39 well.

The press sometimes aids in giving the public untrue medical inform­

ation which may, in fact, harm them, Morton Mintz asserted in 1968. For

example, the press reported that doctors and medical experts recommended

the use of birth control pills; then millions of women began using them.

What the press and doctors involved failed to report, Mintz said, was

that research on side effects of the pill showed that women pill users were much more prone to blood clotting than were non-users. A "statis­

tically significant relationship" was found between the pill and lung, leg and pelvic blood clotting— most frequently in women aged 35 to 44 years. Mintz recommended more conscientious reporting of new medical and scientific "breakthroughs," with more emphasis on the future safety of humans involved.^

"Science and technology are no longer separable from political and social problems," Lee A DuBridge said in a 1969 issue of Science. The

U.S. government spends over "$2 billion for research and $15 billion for development" each year. Thus it is closely associated with science, and politics, of course, greatly influences governmental money allocations.

DuBridge recommends spending more money on basic social and scientific 23

research to learn basic causes of social and technological problems so

the problems can be more successfully solved. He decries scientists and

experts in a field who speak out in the press against or for causes and

issues about which they have li-tle expertise or background, but use

their prestige alone to "push" their ideas. He suggests allocating governmental research and development funds more on the basis of scien­

tific usefulness and potential than political "pull."^

People with more education and higher income levels are more likely to seek science and health information than are people in lower socio­ economic groups, according to a 1969 report by Serena Wade and Wilbur

Schramm. In-depth information about science contained in newspapers and magazines is also more likely to be sought by those with more education, who also tend to use magazines more. "Tentatively, we can say that the public affairs, science, and health information to be learned from tele­ vision is more closely related to events, more likely to capitalize on the present moment, than is the information to be obtained from news- papers and magazines, which can afford to offer more perspective."

In a 1969 study of science news story reading preferences of 54 persons, Joyce Patterson, et al., found that all those studied liked stories that "pertained directly to people." Although "no conclusive answers" to questions about science news story readers were found sta­ tistically important, those surveyed generally liked lively stories that 43 were easy and fun to read as well.

Many science reporters have ceased to do investigative digging for news stories and are content to allow their sources to dictate, in effect, the story material, according to Edwin Diamond. In a 1969 24 critique of press coverage of the Apollo 11 manned moon landing,

Diamond complained that the reporters had been "getting in bed with

NASA." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration had turned the space missions into "media events" to get self-serving publicity and

"win friends, influence Congressmen, and keep the budget appropriations coming in." The reporters tended to see themselves more "as agents of the subject (the source being covered) than as his potential adversar­ ies" (the traditional press role). Media editors and managers turned

"only thirty to forty minutes of real reality TV in a space flight" into over 15 hours of television coverage and pages and pages of news­ paper articles. But, Diamond says, even all of these reports failed to say that "an unmanned Surveyor probe had soft-landed on the moon a few hours before and radioed back a good deal of the same information 44 . . . at considerably cheaper rates than Apollo."

There are "profound differences in viewpoint between the journalist and the scientist" that may hamper mutual understanding and cooperation, according to a 1968 Quill article by Steven H. Chaffee. Examples of these differences include: (1) The scientist is more theory-oriented while the journalist is more concrete.-fact-oriented; (2) Scientists tend to look for patterns or broad categories of events while journalists tend to treat events as causally more isolated; (3) Scientists tend to be more "basic research" oriented while journalists tend to seek practical applications of information or solutions to immediate prob­ lems. There is a need for more research into the causes of journal­ istic problems and the practicality of alternative solutions to those 45 problems, Chaffee sugges ts. Different publications tend to offer their readers "science writing

aimed at audiences of different levels of education," according to a

study published in 1969 by G. Ray Funkhouser. In a survey of readers

of nine magazines concerning the sentence length, vocabulary diffi­

culty, readability, science words, and "activity words" contained in science news stories, these "textual variables" were "found related

to audience interest and enjoyment" and the educational level of the target audiences. Magazines studied included Reader's Digest, Life,

Newsweek, Time, Saturday Review, Fortune, Scientific American, Phys­ ical Review, and the Journal of the American Chemical Society. Funk­ houser concluded that "there is no reason why a high-level audience should not appreciate easy-to-read writing . . .," but he suggests anyway that the "would-be science writer" keep the above "textual variables" in mind when writing for a particular audience.^

Reporters covering stories of types new to them "should be given extra time to gather background information and to write the story," according to conclusions from a study reported on in 1969 by Gary C.

Lawrence and David L. Grey. This was a suggestion to help safeguard against inaccuracies in stories. Other suggestions included:

(1) "Reporters should routinely ask news sources such questions as

'what is the significance of this event?' or 'what should the public know about this event?"' (2) "Reporters and editors should work . . . closely together to avoid errors in copy editing and revision . . .

"Communication accuracy" of science news articles' contents often varies, according to a study published in 1970 by Phillip J. Tichenor, et al. When reporters receive story assignments from their editors, 26

the resulting story tends to be more accurate than an article "orig­

inating with public meetings. . . . However, reporters originating

articles on their own initiative did not produce especially under­

standable articles." Articles based on or originating from written

reports also tended to be more accurate. Among scientists who were

news story sources, the "strongest correlates of communication accuracy were administrative role performance, perception of strict organiza­

tional policy for research reporting and perception of accuracy in ..48 newspaper reports.

"Social indicators" or compilations of statistical information and

comparisons can help make reporters' stories more "scientific," accord­ ing to a 1970 article by Maxwell E. McCombs. Social indicators can help document stories so that information is put in perspective in relation to other data. They add validity to descriptions and analyses, 49 especially in stories dealing with social issues, McCombs claims.

Science reporters cannot and should not always wait to write about studies until scientists publish information in technical journals, according to a 1970 Quill article by Warren Burkett. Too often, he says, "some research doesn't get published because (journals) review board members don't like a man or his work." A researcher may not associate with the "in" groups and he just doesn't become famous or well-known. Thus, science reporters should search out research in progress and completed studies which may give ample information for good, straightforward and honest accounts. Another problem that hampers reporters in finding stories is often passed off as "professional ethics." While some scientists and medical researchers are genuinely 27

concerned about ethical problems, it is also sometimes used as a

"cover-up" for personal whims or interests that may be jeopardized by

release of information. Science writers are becoming more sophisti­

cated also in reporting economic and political influences on scientific

research and more critical of the "idealistic" philosophies of the

scientists, Burkett says. More science writers are needed, he says, 50 to fill our current and projected science news requirements.

Science reporters must become more questioning and skeptical of

new research claims and scientists rather than merely reporting every­

thing scientists say without comment, according to a 1970 article by

John Lear. New developments must be presented in their "true per­

spective" to show what they mean to the average reader, and their re­

lationships to mankind and the problems of our society and environment.

Lear points out that the problems involved in air, water and land pollution were ignored by the media for years, while science writers were busy congratulating industrialists for their technological advances. The result was a man-made disaster for nature, and eventually for man. Similarly, drug and medical research misuse resulted in disasters for man. But all of these were ignored by the science writers until they were almost beyond control."’'*'

An environmental reporter should be part scientist and part writer, according to David Hendin in a 1970 Quill article. He should be able to analyze scientists' claims about the importance of their research and discoveries and make sure that his "facts" are right before pub­ licizing a "breakthrough." He must be "hardnosed" enough to recognize that solutions to one problem may in fact help create or increase environmental problems of other types. But, Hendin notes, "a good

environmental reporter will always have a job," and could probably

easily switch to reporting politics, education or general science

stories«. • if necessary. 52

Environmental reporters must "develop a beat that has never

existed before on most newspapers," according to Casey Bukro in a 1970

Quill article. There are few "old timers" around newspapers to tell

newcomers how to cover local environmental stories. There are a "lot

of trails to blaze," but environmental reporters must "... have the

guts, the initiative, the stamina, and the intelligence to dig deeper

into the subject to find environmental problems not yet suspected or solutions to known problems." Future solutions to environmental problems may require the multi-disciplinary coordinated efforts of

"biological and physical scientists, engineers, economists, lawyers, meteorologists, and experts in aesthetics working together. ..."

And the environmental reporter must understand enough of the work of each specialist adequately to report his contribution to the problem 53 solution as well as overall plans and results.

Of 283 medical doctors surveyed in 1970, most felt that the mass media's role in "relaying useful medical information to doctors (and the general public as well) is minimal," according to M. Timothy O'Keefe

The doctors tended to feel that the media must add some more reliability depth, evaluation and perspective to medical news rather than just conveying information. This would aid the public, O'Keefe says, as well as doctors, who would then be able to learn about new developments and innovations months or years before data were published in 29 professional journals.^

Another medical doctor, Charles G. Roland, questioned in the

Quill in 1970 whether the media’s use of deadlines might be inapprop­ riate for reporting medical news. Research "breakthroughs," for example, may be small parts of a total solution to medical problems or even false claims by publicity seekers. Often other research specialists must check out the data first to verify or disclaim evi­ dence, a process that may require months or years. Similarly, he argues, it is not always necessary that the reading public know a patient's identity or specific medical problem. The doctor has a confidential relationship with the patient that must be respected,

Roland said. Publicity should not always win out over the patient’s

55 right to privacy.

Support for the hypothesis that the "more educated" people tend to read, understand and learn from medical-biological news stories was found in a study reported in 1970 by P. J. Tichenor, et al. They also found support for the statement that as these more educated, higher socio-economic people tend to learn more, the knowledge gap between them and lower socio-economic people tends to increase. The lower socio-economic people tend not to have as much access to the media, nor to read/listen/view news as much, nor to understand and profit from such stories as much. The media add to this gap daily in their science and other types of news reporting. The study involved a survey of

600 persons in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in April,

1968.56 30

A 1965-66 study that sought information about a campaign to

change community attitudes about mental retardation was reported in

1970 by Dorothy F. Douglas, et al. Findings included: (1) "We did not

find that 'know-nothings' are chronically so." (2) "... a positive

correlation between information gain and attitude change" (to a favor­ able position regarding retardees). (3) "... Retardation is doubt­

less not one (issue) on which many deep-seated, ego-involved personal values are based." (4) "Attitude change was uniform across various demographic groups.

Students can be taught to write science news, according to a 1970

Quill article by Leroy M. Carl, who set up and taught such a course at

Temple University. Not only does Carl teach the 5 W*s and H leads and other journalistic techniques, but he also tries to convey the desires, problems, and conflicts of scientists. Students study the "conflict" between scientific and "lay" languages and seek to translate scientific terms as well as possible into "English." Case histories of journalist- scientist relationships are studied. Emphasis is put on researching background information and subject details before interviewing a specialist or writing a story. Sources, including scientific and scholarly journals, public relations releases, and institutions are looked at. Students also interview guest science writers in the class- ,r8 room.

If people are interested in a news event, it is more probable that a larger number of people will learn about it, according to a news diffusion study reported in 1971 by G. Ray Funkhouser and Maxwell E.

McCombs. Also, fewer people will forget about the news event or "turn 31

off" the information in favor of other news. Knowledge of the news

event "... may diffuse to different segments of a mass audience in

different ways, depending on a segment's interest and its (the audi­

ence's) news gathering behavior." The study included telephone surveys about news events conducted in San Mateo County, California, and 59 Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro, North Carolina.

Partly because of the media's focus on broad environmental problems, the public tends to think other places face worse pollution problems than their own home towns, according to a study reported in 1971 by

Arvin W. Murch. This may be true even though the home town pollution levels may exceed national averages. "... Local newspapers tend to concentrate on national, rather than local environmental problems . . ."

After a 1970 survey of 300 residents in Durham, North Carolina, Murch also suggested that residents, because they were attached to their

Durham neighborhoods, refused to acknowledge sizeable defects in their environment, especially to others. They have "... become so habituated to those defects that he (they) no longer even perceive them ..." Residents may have a sizeable economic investment in the community or may live in more desirable and less polluted areas of town. Survey respondents tended to ". . . believe in a solution to environmental problems, but (had) no clear idea of what that solution might be." Many were willing to help solve such problems if specific 60 measures were implemented— but proposals for such are now lacking.

Mass communications are "greatly limited in their ability to affect behavior," according to a study of the effects of anti-smoking commercials reported in 1971 by M. Timothy O'Keefe. In a 1969 survey 32

of 921 persons in central Florida, O ’Keefe found that the anti-smoking

commercials had little effect on heavy smokers unless they already wanted to stop smoking, and the "... greatest effect on those who smoked the least." He also concluded that "... when they feel it it worth it people fairly easily endure a sizeable amount of psychological discomfort ..." and knowingly sacrifice good health for immediate gratification.^ *

The mass media may not change people's attitudes or opinions 3 directly, as Katz and Lazarsfeld and others have noted, but they do provide information which people may use to support their opinions.

Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, after a study of voters in

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, reported in 1972, concluded that there exists "an agenda-setting function of the mass media ..." In other words, although information (including science news) transmitted via the media may not change attitudes and opinions, it may help suggest 62 and limit the subjects and ideas that people discuss or consider.

In a compilation of public opinion surveys conducted across the

United States from 1965 through 1970, Hazel Erskine reported in 1972 that the environment and pollution had fast approached "... top pri­ ority today for expanded governmental spending. . . ." People were recognizing more and more that the air and water around them were polluted and were more concerned about solving environmental problems, even to the point of increasing taxes and voting into office politicians supporting environmental issues.^

A positive correlation between "news flow" on an issue and community adoption of the issue was found in a study reported in 1972 by William 33

Witt. Witt looked at 71 Wisconsin counties from 1968 to 1969 and the

"... coverage of news concerning adoption of shoreland regulations."

News flow was found to be negatively associated with "development of

homes along shorelines and county membership in regional planning „64 commissions . . .

Much of the science and environmental news published currently about

"crises" in supplies of natural resources or in pollution hazards is

misleading and often false, according to Dennis J. Chase in a 1972

Quill article. Journalists often report crises as the statements of

studies, reports, and "prominent scientist(s) or government spokesmen— with no serious attempt to verify the conclusions or locate flaws in

the findings." The result is a feeling of an impending "doomsday" among members of the public, even though such fears are usually unfounded.

Chase suggests that reporters and editors discard "untrue and dubious claims" in crisis stories until they can be supported by other evi­ dence or experts.^

Social and ethical content in science news coverage varies in the three top national weekly newsmagazines, according to a study published in 1973 by William R. Oates. U.S. News and World Report "had the highest frequency of social and ethical signs in its coverage," but

Newsweek and Time each had about "three times more total (news) coverage" and "provided greater total amounts of social and ethical content."

Time's articles "varied more widely between straight news and interpre­ tative presentations," while U.S. News and Newsweek "tended more toward combining hard news and social and ethical content in single stories."

Oates noted, however, that distinctions could not be made in his study 34

between "social and ethical content that was an intrinsic element of

the news itself" and the reporting and/or editorial processes. He 66 suggested the need for measuring standards in this area.

Both the public and media managers in Kansas view pollution as a

real problem in the state but the managers are not supplying enough

pollution news information, according to a study published in 1973 by

Phillip Althoff, et al. Furthermore, "... the managers appear to

have no definite editorial policies as regards pollution control, and

they readily accept advertising from polluters." The researchers in

this study surveyed 158 managers of daily and weekly newspapers, 104

radio and television station managers, and 471 persons in the general

.. . 67 public.

The mass media do not act alone, of course, in transmitting in­

formation or entirely controlling knowledge learned. Rather, as

G. A. Donohue, et al., pointed out in 1973, the ". . . mass media are viewed . . . as interdependent parts of a total social system in which

they share problems of controlling, and being controlled by, other

subsystems. A major goal of research within this perspective is to point up the crucial nature of knowledge control, rather than knowledge

in and of itself, as a base for social power ..." Research is needed

to learn "... how the (information) control is exercised, where in

the process it occurs, and what its consequences are for the overall

social system as well as for the interdependent subsystems ..."

Donohue, et al., also point out that "... there is a strong tendency

for media content in scientific and technical areas to reinforce the status of intellectual elites in society ..." People with higher 35

socio-economic status now tend to acquire new information . .at

a faster rate than the lower segments so that the gap in knowledge be- 68 tween those segments tends to increase rather than decrease ..."

In a content analysis of nine national, large circulation, general

interest magazines, J. S. and D. D. Sorenson found in 1973 that coverage

of science news increased over five years. "The total number of

articles in (the category) science/technology in the 1969/70 period

was 83 percent greater than in 1964/65." Those magazines studied for

the two, eight-month periods included Life, National Geographic, Read­

er's Digest, Redbook, Saturday Evening Post, Time, Ladies Home Journal

and McCall's. The Sorensons concluded that, "Most of the increase in

•science/technology content is shown in space and environment ..."

This "heavy emphasis . . . may indicate that magazine editors are

trying to approach their audience with science subjects through these

two different appeals: (1) personal environment subjects and (2) appeal 69 of the dramatic and spectacular through space subjects."

In a 1973 content analysis of the three American national news

weekly magazines (Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report) from

1960 through 1970, G. Ray Funkhouser found that articles dealing with

the category "Pollution/Ecology" tended to increase as the years passed.

He also noted, however, that "... some of the major issues of the

1960's received media coverage bearing a tenuous relationship to the

real events underlying the issues." He listed ". . .at least five

mechanisms in addition to the flow of actual events that operate to

influence the amount of media attention that a given issue may receive:

adaptation of the media to the stream of events; over-reporting,of 36 significant but unusual events; selective reporting of the newsworthy aspects of otherwise non-newsworthy situations; pseudo-events, the manufacturing of news-worthy events that pertain to an issue; and event summaries, situations that portray non-newsworthy events in a newsworthy way." Funkhouser concluded that "Enough was happening during the 1960's that any number of topics besides the emphasized issues could have been the 'big issues.' Going by available public opinion data, it seems likely that any set of 'national issues' would have been about as well received by the general public as any other . . .

"Checkbook Journalism," or paying sources for science news stories, is a questionable practice, according to Robert Sherrod. In a 1973

Columbia Journalism Review article, Sherrod criticized media managers, especially those heading the Time/Life magazine and book complex, for paying American astronauts for "exclusive rights" to stories concerning their working and private lives. The practice, he claimed, limited other media non-official contacts with the men and helped stereotype the astronauts into "deodorized, plasticized and homogenized" or

"Boy Scout" images that NASA wished to create. Because the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration could limit access to the astro­ nauts and thus effectively censor news stories, it meant that Life magazine would be "making the astronauts look good, and vice versa."

Life magazine "ran a lot of trivia— an editor's disease when they must over-publish in order to justify costly projects— and its prestige suffered proportionately."^

Media reports of environmental problems are perceived by the public as not "fully real" and it is useless for the individual to attempt to 37 help solve them, according to an article by G. D. Wiebe published in

1973. The person who learns about such problems through the media often harbors feelings of "well-informed futility." He realizes he can do little about them, but "identifiable influentials" do have the power and "pull" to help solve them. Media "gatekeepers," by continually associating environmental problems and the influentials, may help push 72 those individuals toward finding solutions to the problems.

Environmental news coverage quite often is about events outside of the media's spheres of influence or circulations rather than about local environmental problems and events, according to Steven E. Hunger- ford and James B. Lemert. This form of "Afghanistanism" or writing about "places just up the road a piece" rather than one's own neighbor­ hood or town's problems helps give readers the impression that other communities' problems are more serious than one's own, even though the reverse may be true. Hungerford and Lemert, whose report was pub­ lished in 1973, studied news stories in 20 Oregon general circulation 73 daily newspapers for a week in 1970.

Media information campaigns can help increase knowledge and change attitudes, according to a 1974 report by Rodolfo N. Salcedo, et al.

They studied the effects of television, radio, newspaper, and mailed advertisements directed to the residents of Quincy, Illinois, during

May, 1972. Using the city of Decatur, Illinois, as a "control" commun­ ity, they conducted pretest and posttest interviews involving over 200 persons in each city to gauge the effects of an attempt to ". . . in­ crease levels of knowledge and influence attitudes toward the pesticide label and safe use of pesticides." They found that "... Exposure to 38

the message is a critical factor in information campaigns," and that

the researchers' or advertisers' "... control over the timing and

frequency of the dissemination of their message" affected their re-

suits.n . 74

Journalists too often uncritically proclaim that science and

scientists are in financial trouble when they are not, according to

Daniel S. Greenberg. Although scientific research is a field worthy

of much private and governmental monetary assistance, it is not the

press's job to unhesitantly "push" the scientist's arguments. In fact,

he says, federal expenditures for research and development were up to

a new high of $19 billion in 1974, the year the article was published.

Greenberg also pointed out that the media in the United States, espe­

cially television, do not give enough coverage to science news.^

Heavy media users tended to consider themselves as "less informed

on environmental issues, viewed the issues as less serious, and pre­

ferred less personal solutions to them," according to a study reported

in 1974 by Kenneth Novic and Peter M. Sandman. In the study involving

154 students at the University of Michigan, "... Respondents who

considered themselves more informed on environmental issues were more

likely to prefer personal solutions only if they were not heavily

dependent on the mass media for environmental information." Novic and

Sandman concluded that "... the mass media may be able to begin, but not to complete, the process of preparing their audience to participate 76 in social change."

Advanced education in science and journalism subjects seemed to add to reporters' propensity to write accurate scientific pressreleases, 39

according to a study published in 1973 by Katie Broberg. For the

study, scientist sources were asked to read press releases about their

work to which they had contributed information, and suggest changes in

content, details or possible additions. Broberg found that "accurate

writers tend to put in more detail than inaccurate writers." The

scientists seemed to want to add more details of their work rather

than make many other changes, and surprisingly, "changed more technical

terms to lay terms than the reverse.

The question whether scientists should be able to "review" news

articles about their work and change possible errors was raised in 1973

by James W. Tankard, Jr., and Michael Ryan. Scientists usually say they

should be given the right of review to ensure news story accuracy and

help eliminate possible distortions of their words or work. Journalists

complain, however, that giving scientist-sources this review right may:

(1) conflict with normal deadline times; (2) make the scientist a "hero"

in the story rather than a usual source; (3) result in no changes because an editor may change them again; (4) affect a total-view story

in which the scientist plays a minor role; (5) be a form of "censorship" and a "threat to freedom of the press;" or (6) result in a power struggle if the scientist decides the story should not be printed. Sometimes the source may be allowed to review only a part of the story to check

complex conditions or statements for accuracy, or to suggest possible

changes. Decisions on these matters are now resolved by editors, re- 78 porters and scientists in their own ways.

Technically complex science news can be presented in "simple" to more complicated writing styles for different audiences "with virtually 40 no change in the information presented," according to a study published in 1973 by G. Ray Funkhouser and Nathan Maccoby. The two manipulated

10 variables such as length of sentences, complexity of words, numbers of "activity" and science words, use of "fillers," and use of section breakdowns in writing science-oriented news stories. They then had human subjects with differing educational levels and science back­ grounds read the stories and take tests to help determine what was learned, attitude changes, and other data. Other conclusions included:

". . . Differences in style can result in measurable differences in effects on educated lay audiences," and "... 'simplified' science 79 writing is appreciated at all levels of audience, not just the lowest."

Most "environmental reporters" working on newspapers who answered a 1973 mail survey had other duties besides the environmental beat, according to a study by William Witt published in 1974. Of 54 respond­ ents, 96 percent attended college: 44 had bachelor's degrees and 13 had master's degrees; 23 had journalism degrees. Most continued their edu­ cations, either formally or on an informal basis. Most had worked years on other beats before getting this one, and averaged 3.7 years as an environmental reporter. Most respondents received $10,000 to $15,000 a year. Their titles did not usually reflect their environmental duties, and most were classified as just "reporters or staff writers."

Primary environmental news sources included conservation clubs and organizations, government conservation agencies, business and industry, universities, non-conservation governmental agencies, and other media, in that order. Most news dealt with air and water pollution and gov­ ernmental agencies involved, and came from personal contacts, but a 41

great deal also came from "press releases and other reports." Most

of the reporters "felt the environment was inadequately covered," and blamed editors and reporters for indifference to and ignorance of such problems.^

Science news stories have a higher rate of errors than do regular news stories, according to a study reported on in 1974 by James W.

Tankard, Jr., and Michael Ryan. Using clippings of newspaper science stories and a questionnaire mailed to sources named in the stories, the two found that sources listed an average of 6.22 errors per story.

The most common errors included: (1) omission of relevant information about methods of study; (2) omission of relevant information about results of study; (3) misquoted scientists; (4) names of team researchers omitted; (5) no qualifications of statements; (6) misleading headline;

(7) quoted researcher out of context; (8) ignored earlier research relevant to study; and (9) story was too brief. The authors concluded that "... letting the scientist read the story before publication leads to fewer perceived errors when the story is evaluated later. On the basis of this finding, science writers might consider letting the 81 sources of articles review them for accuracy prior to publication."

(See also Footnote 85.)

People who perceive science news as relevant or helpful to them are more likely to read any science news story regardless of style, according to a study reported in 1974 by James E. Grunig. Those sub­ jects tested who did not "perceive a problem to which the scientific topic relates or who cannot apply the information because of constraints in their situation" were not likely to learn from science news stories. 42

Parables and analogies were found useful in conveying information, but 82 examples were found least effective.

Science news reporters and physician-scientists must mutually agree

on ground rules to give each one the help he needs in his profession, according to Dr. Lois DeBakey. For the scientist this means carefully explaining his ideas and findings in easily understood terms and

language. For the reporter this means avoiding sensationalism while getting an accurate account of research findings across to the public.

If such (and similar) guidelines are followed, both will have a better 83 chance of achieving their humanitarian goals, according to DeBakey.

Active science writers surveyed recommended more social and

"physical science courses for future science writers than they them­ selves had in college," according to a 1975 article by Michael Ryan and

Sharn L. Dunwoody. The 152 respondents were also likely to recommend that some research or laboratory experience be completed, especially if they had worked in such areas themselves. They suggested taking courses in the liberal arts, and journalism and communication as well. Some

13.6 percent recommended that no special science writing courses be used, while others recommended that specialized training for science writers. Of these latter 132 respondents, 47 percent favored under­ graduate science writing courses; 32.6 percent favored graduate science writing courses; 40.2 percent favored science writing internships on newspapers and magazines; and 52.3 percent favored part-time or summer jobs in science reporting. Compared to previous surveys of science reporters, the 1975 study found that current reporters had more college education as measured in earned degrees and graduate study. Majors were 43 similar to those found in previous studies, with journalism and

English in the lead. Most respondents worked as general assignment reporters, editors, free-lancers, or public relations/advertising 84 writers before becoming science reporters.

In a study reported in 1976, D. Lynn Pulford noted that studies of science news reporting content that 'found a high rate of errors may have been tied to the length of the questionnaire used. A longer question­ naire seemed tied to a higher error rate, and a shorter questionnaire tied to a smaller error rate per story, about the same error rate as was in more routine types of news stories. Pulford also noted that,

"Reporting and editing performance on science topics seems to be 85 weakest in headline writing."

Almost any journalism reporting instructor who has "an interest in science and technology, and had some basic science courses in college, should be able to teach (science writing)," says Holim Kim in the

October, 1977, Journalism Educator. Kim also mentions three main ways of explaining complex scientific ideas: definition, examples and 86 analogy.

Interest in science and technology news articles is growing among the general American public, according to a 1977 survey conducted by the Newspaper Advertising Bureau. This study put energy problems first, and other health and environment problems in the top six categories. 87 In a 1971 survey, none of these items were so highly ranked.

In a 1978 study of Communication of Technical Information to Lay

Audiences financed by the U.S. Department of Energy, John E. Bowes, et al., concluded that, "Communication of technical information to 44 non-experts is, at best, an incompletely researched and understood field." Bowes and his researchers jointly studied and summarized 163 88 books and journal articles dealing with technical information.

Susan Cray Borman found in 1978 that overall "accuracy of popular­ ized science news in mass circulation magazines . . . was good." Her

10 evaluators' main criticisms were centered on the "omissions of relevant information," including "failure to mention research methods,

21%; incomplete information about important results, 21%; omission of the primary investigators' names, 25%; and lack of qualifying statements important for accurate impressions, 21%." Science-oriented magazines were top-rated, as might be expected, while newsweeklies were "criti- 89 cized for problems of interpretation."

Environmental communication programs have "come of age" and are finally being recognized as major journalism concerns, according to a

1978 article by Clay Schoenfeld and John E. Ross. From a slow begin­ ning back in the 1960's, such programs are now in operation around the country with varying results and emphases. For example, the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Center for Environmental Communications and

Education Studies has three master's degree emphases, plus connections with related publications, research and service agencies, and other organizations. Such "programs are helping sponsor a new profession" 90 in environmental communications, they say.

In order to meet their deadlines, and "grind out" the numbers of science news stories their editors required weekly or daily, science reporters sometimes become overly dependent on press releases and press conferences, according to Sharon Dunwoody in a 1978 study. In addition, 45

Dunwoody found out that the notoriously competitive, "loner" science

reporters tended to cooperate with each other rather than "fight" each

other because of the highly technical and complex nature of their

assignments, and the necessity of sharing information occasionally.

One unfortunate result of this, however, was duplication of news stories

rather than unique or individual science news stories. Younger, less

knowledgeable or less experienced reporters and broadcast reporters

tended to rely most heavily on press conferences for basic story

information. ^

In a 1978 mail survey of 72 science journalists, Everette E. Dennis

and James McCartney found that most such reporters were generalists

within the science field and few routinely reported on the same topic.

They found that most science journalists' views of their audiences were

"rather hazy," but they wrote their stories for people with at least a high school education. Dennis and McCartney concluded that science writing is improving in quality and quantity, and science reporters are

"seasoned" and "well-educated," many with "special credentials and

„training • • m science. • ..92

Environmental writers are becoming more aware of the world-wide

ecological interdependence, according to Clay Schoenfeld in a paper presented at the 1978 Association for Education in Journalism Convention.

And the public, in turn, is becoming more aware of ecological problems 93 because of these writers, he said.

Modern science writers "must be familiar not only with the tech­ nical side of the issue but also with the social context in which it occurs," according to Phillip J. Tichenor in a paper presented at the 46

1978 AEJ Convention. Nowadays, one can find "experts” who will argue for either side on a scientific or environmental issue with political or economic implications. The reporter must take care to "analyze and write so as to allow for the best possible public evaluation of the 94 arguments and data being used on all sides."

"Real World" experiences should be used in college environmental and science writing courses, according to Sharon M. Friedman in a 1978

AEJ Convention report. Students should complete assignments outside the classroom so that they can more readily relate classroom ideals to 95 the working world and see the problems inherent in such reporting.

Scientists "can assist in teaching science writing," according to

Rae Goodell, in a paper presented at the 1978 AEJ Convention. Even though many scientists do not write well (and are not usually rewarded by their peers or employers for so doing), Goodell suggests that they can devise or suggest "appropriate technical courses for journalism students," can be interviewed for writing exercises, be quoted while at meetings and seminars, and give feedback on writing accuracy, among 96 other things.

Michael Ryan, in a 1979 article, concluded that scientists and journalists' attitudes toward "media coverage of science news" were

"remarkably similar." Ryan made the conclusions after a mail survey of 198 science writers and editors and 140 scientists. He also found that although the above statements (in quotes) were true, "each group 97 perceived a larger gap than actually existed (between the groups)."

In a 1979 article that summarized 1971 and 1979 newspaper reader­ ship surveys, Clyde Z. Nunn found "Newspaper reader interest in science 47

and technology . . . is strong and growing." He concluded that "...

more media coverage of science and how it affects our lives is needed 98 and desired by increasing numbers of citizens."

Surveys in 1972 and 1975 conducted for the Society for Technical

Communication found that 357 schools and colleges "offered at least

one course in technical writing or technical illustrating." The

Society found in its 1975 survey that at least 18 schools offered 99 degrees in such fields.

A more relative survey in 1977, however, resulted in the findings

that 58 American colleges and universities offered 34 programs and 105 courses in "science communication." These programs included 24 bache­

lor’s degree programs, 10 master's degree programs, and 3 doctorate programs. The results of the survey, as well as names of the institu­ tions with courses and programs, were published in the 1978 Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs, by Sharon M. Friedman, et«. al. i 100

One cautionary note: In the previous two studies or surveys men­ tioned, not all of the courses or programs listed deal with the defi­ nition of science writing being used here. Rather, some courses or programs listed under science, environmental or technical writing refer to writing about agricultural developments, home economics, business, or even public relations! Thus, one must look critically at those entries and judge each one individually by merit.

Other books used as general reference sources for this study in­ clude: Science and the Mass Media, by Hillier Krieghbaum; Literary

Style in Science Writing, by DeWitt Reddick; Writing Science News for 48

the Mass Media, by David Warren Burkett; Mass Media and the Environment, by David M. Rubin and David P. Sachs; and Interpreting Environmental

Issues, by Clay Schoenfeld.

Summary

Science and technology are important to people in the Twentieth

Century. They contribute luxuries to our lives that were unimaginable a hundred or more years ago. But they also contribute to pollution and radiation levels, and may ultimately cause the extinction of the human race.

Science news reporting can help transmit information concerning new developments and discoveries plus environmental hazards through the communications media to the American public. But what should be transmitted? How should it be done? Who should do it? How can we ensure the proper quality and quantity of science news? How should science reporters be trained or educated?

People generally tend to be interested in science and medical news and to seek more such news, according to national surveys, especially 102 if they perceive it as of some help in or relevance to their lives.

But, as Robinson pointed out in 1963, many persons' behavior is affected only slightly by science, even though science has greatly changed their world, because they really do not understand underlying scientific 103 principles and thus do not seek much science information.

Those who _do tend to seek more science and medical or health information generally have more education and higher income levels than 104 the non-seekers, according to studies completed. This fact implies that many persons in the United States, perhaps the majority of the 49

citizens, are not "turned on" enough by science or science articles to read them. Different periodicals ranging from Reader's Digest to

Physical Review, however offer their readers "science writing aimed at audiences of different levels of education," according to several studies, including one by Funkhouser.

But merely because a person uses the media more does not always mean that (s)he considers him/herself better informed about science, 106 medicine and the environment. Nor would he necessarily increase his taxes drastically to help solve technological problems.

Science news reporting is a growing field and more science and 108 medical news reporters will be needed in the future. But good science and medical reporters must be accurate conveyers of information, write clearly and simply, translate complex technical terms into easily understood "lay" language, convert abstract ideas into understandable pictures, and connect current research to previous and related 109 studies. Readers at all educational levels like "simplified" science writing and lively stories that are easy and fun to read.^^

Factual errors in science and medical news stories may be greatly reduced or limited by allowing sources to read and "correct" news stories before they are printed and/or aired.But journalists gen­ erally frown on such "unethical" practices that may suggest a form of censorship.

Science and medical news can also be presented via television and may be well received and learned if the presentations are done creatively.«-■ i 112 50

Science news reporters are a "special breed" of journalists with

knowledge of the physical or "hard" sciences as well as the more common

social sciences. They must bridge the gap' between the scientist and 113 the public, analyze technical problems, and "humanize" data. They must often develop new science or environmental beats that never existed before on most newspapers; arid they must be given extensive research 114 materials and time to use them on the job.

But science and medical writers should be critical of information

that scientists and medical researchers may give them for self-serving or "political" reasons. Valuable research may also be ignored by professional journal editors or otherwise remain unpublicized because of jealousy, fear or other reasons. If investigative reporting is not done, environmental "crises" and other scientific, medical or techno­ logical problems can remain unseen (or sometimes be over-emphasized).^"*"^

Science and medical reporters and editors can easily become de­ pendent on paid sources and public relations releases for news, and forego their investigative potentials. For example, most accounts of

American space flights and the astronauts were limited to positive public relations information handed out by the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration staffers. Press credibility suffered when those staffs refused to give out negative information about the program or space capsule fires and accidents.

On the other hand, public relations releases may sometimes provide the initial or only report of a new discovery, invention or innovation.

For example, the world's first knowledge about the synthesis of DNA

(Deoxyribonucleic Acid) was through a Stanford University School of 51

Medicine press release. 118 Good editors can "help interpret science to readers." But many editors judge the worth of science news stories differently than do scientists, science writers and members of the general public— editors often favor "newsworthiness" or a type of sensationalism more 119 than the others do. Reporters often tend to write more accurate science news stories if their editors assign them than if the reporters think up the story ideas first, or get leads for stories from public 120 meetings or written reports. Editors often tend to downplay environ­ mental problems within their medium's sphere of influence, and play up 121 problems outside their community— a form of "Afghanistanism."

Surveys of science and environmental writers since 1940 indicate that most are more educated than the "average" reporter, are well paid, of middle age, enjoy their work, and often cover other news areas as well. The science writers suggest generally that potential science reporters complete physical and social science courses in college, as 122 well as English or journalism writing courses.

Leaders in journalism education do not always seem enthusiastic about training science and medical reporters. This attitude is common even though specialized training is given in areas such as public rela­ tions, advertising, business reporting, broadcast news, public and international affairs reporting, agriculture news reporting, photo- 123 journalism, and others.

One view in many journalism departments seems to be that a person trained as a good general assignment reporter can easily make the transition to covering science, medical or environmental news. But 52 a few journalism departments are already making a specific effort to

1 ry / include science and medical news reporting courses in their curricula.

Some journalism schools and departments do give courses in

"technical writing." But even this terminology is suspect. Sometimes

"technical writing" in course descriptions refers to reporting about science and related technological fields, and this is the primary concern of this study. But in other cases it may refer to writing about agriculture, home economics, business, or even public relations! Thus, further clarification of that term is required before we can rely 125 totally on it.

Overall, the need for science news writers seems evident in our rapidly advancing technological society, according to the literature quoted here. "Progress" is continuing at faster rates than ever before.

People have to know what is happening in science and how it affects them, sometimes merely to survive nowadays.

Yet science writing is a relatively new field. Most journalism schools and departments do not have courses in science reporting.

Perhaps part of that is because most journalism educators have little physical science training or interest, and have tended to concentrate more on the arts and social sciences for news coverage emphases — and they have drawn like-minded students. In any case, a change in educa­ tional philosophy seems to be occurring in scattered colleges across the country. But little is now known about how to conduct science writing courses. Perhaps this study can help correct that. CHAPTER II

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY

With the increasing importance of science and technology in the

lives of Americans, it is clear that more and better opportunities to

acquire scientific and medical knowledge are needed by both adults and

children. Studies reveal the extent of interest in such material and the disposition to make use of it to the degree to which it is under­ stood. Unfortunately, such information as reported in the mass media is not always accurate and reliable. The reporting of such news is a growing field, and more well qualified and prepared personnel are needed. Few schools and departments of journalism now offer courses in science reporting and no studies appear to have been made concerning the nature of the curriculum which would adequately prepare such specialists.

Nature of the Study

In this study, information will be sought about whether there is a perceived need for more and better science and medical news presenta­ tions in the media, and if there is a perceived need for more science and medical writers, reporters or broadcasters. Assuming that these needs are recognized and deemed important by people working in science, education and the media, an attempt will then be made to isolate or identify those principles that may be used to help train or educate future science and medical writers, reporters or broadcasters. These principles will then be used to help construct a model curriculum which

53 54

may be of some usefulness or assistance to those seeking to train or

educate such specialists.

Hypotheses

On the basis of the available literature, the following tentative

hypotheses can be stated:

‘ (1) More educated or trained science and medical news writers,

reporters or broadcasters are needed in the United States, as perceived

by science and media specialists.

(2) These science and medical news writers, reporters or broad­

casters should be primarily prepared, or trained and educated, by

universities and university journalism or mass communications schools

or departments.

(3) A special science and medical news writing or broadcasting

sequence of courses should be offered by university journalism or mass

communications schools or departments, plus the opportunity for relevant work experiences.

(4) Principles to be used in formulating such a sequence of expe­

riences, individual science or medical news writing or broadcasting

courses, and for counseling potential science or medical news writers

and broadcasters in a university, can be identified and ranked as to value in a journalism or mass communications school or department

curriculum.

(5) An educational model seeking to achieve satisfaction of those principles can be constructed.

The study should enable the researcher to accept or reject these hypotheses. Methodology

Essentially this study will gather data with regard to the need

for improved science presentations in the media from those closest to

the problem; i.e., scientists and medical researchers, and those gather­

ing, preparing, editing, and disseminating such news in broadcasts and

print. Data concerning principles to be followed in the educational

training of scientific and medical reporters will be gathered from

both these specialists and from journalism educators.

1. Sources

The sources for the study will be scientists and medical researchers,

science and medical reporters, writers or broadcasters, editors and other media managers, and journalism educators. These groups were

chosen as the populations to be queried because individuals in them have the most contact with science writers, and interest in or potential influence on their work.

Scientists and medical researchers are usually prime or major con­ tributors to science news stories, or to the news releases or journal articles that form the bases for science news stories. They generally want accurate and honest reporting, written up in a way that is inter­ esting to most readers. Peer interest and standing can be added to or reduced in some cases by media articles. And since the public funds much of the research and development conducted in the United States each year, publicity can help add to their "image" and the future funding of their research.

Science writers, since they daily research and write science and medical news stories themselves, know the problems and requirements of 56

good science reporters. For the purposes here, it is assumed that

they want to keep the standards of science and medical reporters high

and to improve and increase current science and medical news reporting.

It is also assumed that, in general, they do not want to have to spend

time and effort training new science and medical reporters all by

themselves.

Editors and media managers pass on science and medical news informa­

tion. They are usually the "gatekeepers" who decide what to put in or 2 on the media. They are relatively sophisticated and cosmopolitan. .

They ordinarily want honest, accurate, clearly written science and medical news stories that explain and "translate" scientific or tech­ nical data for readers, and are "newsworthy."

University and college journalism educators are instructional specialists with experience in training people to fill future media needs.

They would probably have the responsibility for most of the professional education, training and/or counseling of potential science and medical writers or reporters attending colleges and universities. It is assumed here that they want high reporting standards maintained and made even higher, if possible.

The scientists and medical researchers will be chosen on a random 126 basis from listings in a physical sciences "who's who" type of book.

The science and medical writers will be randomly chosen on the basis of their job descriptions from membership lists of the National Associa­ tion of Science Writers and the Aviation/Space Writers' Association.

Preference will be given to currently working print and broadcast media science and medical news reporters; public relations and advertising 57 127 specialists will not be queried.

The editors and media managers will be primarily newspaper editors

or their broadcast counterparts. They will be randomly chosen from

editorial staffs listed in trade journals such as the Editor and Pub­

lisher Yearbook.

University and college journalism educators will be randomly chosen 129 from membership lists of the Association for Education in Journalism.

2. The Samples

Ideally, if one wished to obtain absolutely accurate information, he would question every person who falls in each category of sources listed above. This is neither feasible nor necessary, however. It is not feasible because of limitations of time, available manpower and money. For example, there were almost 250,000 scientists in the United

States in 1970 alone, according to the 1974 Statistical Abstract of the 130 United States; questioning them would be a mammoth job. It is not necessary because querying a sampling of such persons will give similar and reasonably accurate results.

A sample of the source populations can be obtained fairly readily, and their answers to carefully determined questions on a mail question­ naire can be considered representative of the populations within certain limits of probability.

The study being discussed here will require two stages: one stage will involve queries to determine if more and better science and medical news stories and reporters are perceived as needed; the other stage will help suggest ways that potential science and medical reporters can be 58 trained or educated, and help isolate the educational principles involved in so doing.

A) The First Stage. The first group used as the basis for the

First Stage will consist of 100 individuals. Thirty-four of these in­ dividuals will be working science and medical news writers or reporters or broadcasters, 33 will be editors and/or media managers, and 33 will be scientists and medical researchers. These categories have been chosen because these individuals are most concerned with the actions of current science and medical news reporters, and therefore perhaps best qualified to judge whether more and better science and medical news presentations, and more and better science and medical news re­ porters, are needed.

(The expected rate of return of information from the groups should provide a sample of around 55 to 60 percent of the individuals queried, according to the available literature on mail surveys. It is acknowl­ edged that some bias in the sample's replies will occur, depending on which group or groups are more conscientious in returning the question­ naires to be used.)

The working science and medical writers will be selected on a random basis from the membership lists of the National Association of

Science Writers and the Aviation/Space Writers' Association, as suggested before. Every Nth name will be selected to be sent a questionnaire after an arbitrary starting point is randomly determined. The editors and media managers will be similarly selected to represent large and small newspapers and broadcast facilities, using a random selection process. Emphasis in selecting scientists and medical researchers will 59 be on getting a random cross section of specialists within the physical and biological sciences.

B) The Second Stage. The base group for the second stage will consist of 400 individuals. In addition to the three categories queried in the first stage, journalism educators will now also be asked for. their ideas and opinions about providing experiences for educating or training science and medical news reporters or writers. One hundred individuals from each category will be asked to contribute to the study.

All of the potential respondents from the four groups, science writers, journalism educators, scientists and medical researchers, and newspaper editors, will be randomly selected from the organizational and professional books and membership lists mentioned above.

(Again, it is recognized that the sample size will be limited by the number of individuals in the base group of 400 who choose to answer and return the questionnaires. And that some bias will most certainly result depending on which group has more respondents.)

3. The Questionnaires

There are many ways of obtaining information usable in a research study with objectives similar to those that this one has. One could merely study the available literature, for example, summarize the data included therein, and draw conclusions. But in this case the available literature does not really answer all of the relevant questions about science and medical news writing and reporters that have been asked here.

Additional information is needed.

One could merely sit down under a handy shade tree and think about the problems involved with science and medical news writing and reporters, 60

then propose solutions to those problems based on one's own experiences and thoughts. But one's own experiences and thoughts are necessarily-

limited by time, space and personal exposures to ideas and ways of thinking. Other philosophies and the experiences and ideas of other individuals may present new and innovative solutions to the problems which would otherwise not have been considered by the researcher.

One could set up a classroom situation and train or educate poten­ tial science and medical reporters, then observe the effects of differ­ ent educational and training methods on actual job performances. But such an experiment in the educational and working worlds would involve time measured in years and enormous financial commitment. Time and money are at a premium here; little of either is readily available.

Thus, because of the limitations outlined above, some means of obtaining information about science and medical news writing and re­ porters other than those mentioned must be used.

One possibility is to question the sources or samples mentioned above in order to take advantage of the first-hand knowledge and expe­ rience that they have, and try to have them answer some relevant questions. It is probable that information would be available that could not be found in the literature. Some possible ideas, innovations, and combinations of ideas and innovations not available before this time might be uncovered or prodded into being. And the time and money expended might be kept to a minimum, especially if the questions or questionnaires were mailed to the potential respondents and they returned their answers via the mails. 61

Of course, the questions would have to be carefully worded so that

they would be perceived by the potential respondents in the same way.

And the respondents would have to be able to answer the questions easily

and use their own ideas creatively to solve the problems posed.

There are problems involved in using mailed questions, or inquiry

sheets, or questionnaires, however. Some researchers claim that they

result in a relatively low rate of return because potential respondents

can too easily toss them aside or throw them away unanswered, or re­

spondents will "cheat" on the answers because no one is there to observe

their verbal comments about the questions or their "body language."

But other researchers suggest distinct advantages for mailed sur­

veys or questionnaires. These suggested advantages include: they lend

themselves to a wider, national distribution; there is less distribution

bias in connection with the neighborhood, type of family or respondent

sought; there is no interviewer bias; there is a better chance of a

truthful and thoughtful reply; there more easily can be centralized

control; and the already mentioned factors involving savings in time 131 and money.

Two different mail questionnaires will be used here, for Stages I

and II. The first, used for Stage I, will be used in an attempt to

determine whether potential respondents perceive that the current science

and medical news coverage is adequate to keep the public well enough

informed about science and medical ideas and innovations, if such

coverage should be increased in quantity and improved in quality, and

if more specialized science and medical news reporters are needed in the mass media. The questionnaire will be rather short, about two pages 62

long, and will consist primarily of about 40 closed-ended questions.

The questions will consist of statements, and the respondent will be

asked to check in a blank provided whether he agrees or disagrees with

them, or rates an idea or suggestion of good/bad or high/low value or importance. Some demographic data will also be sought. Ideally, the respondent will be able to give his answers to the questions within five minutes or less.

The second questionnaire, used for Stage II, will be used in an attempt to learn how potential science and medical news reporters can best be trained or educated, and what educational principles might apply.

This questionnaire will be longer, about two sheets printed on both sides or a 4-page booklet, and include more (about 75) questions. For the most part, however, the respondent will again be asked to rate various possible background experiences, background educational possi­ bilities, supervised experiences, and journalistic educational ideas on a scale of low to high usefulness or importance for educating or train­ ing potential science and medical news reporters. Again, some demo­ graphic data will be sought. This questionnaire will require more time to complete, perhaps 10 to 15 minutes, if the respondent thoughtfully considers his replies.

Questions or statements used in the questionnaires will be derived from the available literature, questions posed by the researcher, and reactions of respondents to a pilot test conducted before the question­ naires are sent out. A pilot run will be used in an attempt to learn if the qeustions are effective and valid in finding out the desired information, and to suggest additional questions or problems to be 63

included in the final questionnaires. If possible, respondents to

pilot run questionnaires will be interviewed in person after completing

the questionnaire to obtain their comments and suggestions.

4. Stages I and II

The first stage survey paraphernalia will consist of a two-sheet questionnaire, each printed on one side, plus a stamped and addressed

No. 9 return envelope and a "cover" letter explaining the nature of the study and asking for the potential respondent's help, all enclosed in a No. 10, large, white, stamped and hand-addressed envelope. Since the potential respondents are all in some way concerned with or working in a field of science, the stamps used will ideally be ones that com­ memorate some scientific advance or achievement. (Each of these specific requirements is designed to help ensure the maximum question- 131 naires return, as suggested in the literature.)

The returned responses will be tabulated by question category and analyzed. Evaluations will be made, followed by a decision, based on the survey (Stage I) results and evaluations, about whether the second stage of the study as it is currently envisioned should be conducted or if changes to the nature and format of the study should occur.

Assuming that the first-stage respondents tend to think that the quality and quantity of science and medical news stories need to be improved and increased, and tend to favor training or educating more science and medical news reporters, the second stage will be conducted.

This stage will be used in an attempt to help identify appropriate ideas and/or principles that can be used to help educate or train po­ tential science and medical news reporters, writers, and broadcast 64

specialists.

The format of this second stage survey will resemble very closely

that of the first stage. The questionnaire will be longer, however,

running to two sheets or a booklet, with printing on four pages, to

help keep costs down. The questionnaire will be accompanied by a

stamped and addressed No. 9 return envelope, and a "cover" letter ex­

plaining the nature of the study and asking for the potential respond­

ent's help— all enclosed in a large white, stamped and hand-addressed,

No. 10 envelope. Science-oriented, colorful stamps will again be used

to help assure more responses.

The second stage questionnaires returned will be checked over and

the data coded and recorded on computer cards for numerical and sta­

tistical analysis. Those ideas selected by the respondents as most

valuable to the experiences, education or training of potential science

or medical writers, reporters or broadcasters will be identified and

compiled in tables. From those ideas, a list of principles will be

derived that may be of some value for use in educating or training

science news writers and reporters.

5. The Curriculum Model

Based on the principles and ideas identified, a model curriculum embodying the principles selected as most important will then be gen­ erated to help journalism educators and others plan programs to help train future science and medical writers, reporters or broadcasters. 65

6. Conclusions

Finally, implications, conclusions and suggestions for future research growing out of the data and experiences of the study will be presented.

Summary

This study will attempt to determine if more and better science news coverage is needed in the media and if more science news reporters are required. If the answers to both of these questions are positive, an attempt will be made to determine principles or ideas that could be used to help train or educate science news reporters. A model curric­ ulum will then be constructed to aid in the preparation of science news reporters, based on those principles.

Two study stages are involved here: (1) The first stage will in­ volve a survey of randomly-chosen scientists, science writers and media editors or managers to determine the current quality and quantity of science news coverage, who should cover science news stories, and whether more science and medical reporters are seen as required.

(2) The second stage will involve a random survey of the same groups used in the first stage plus journalism educators. This survey will attempt to learn the respondents’ thoughts concerning the background education and experiences that potential science reporters should have as well as the competencies they and science news writing or reporting teachers should possess, who should teach science reporting and writing, and other details concerning science news writing and reporting train­ ing or education. CHAPTER III

CARRYING OUT THE STUDY

This study of science and medical news reporting can be divided into two related parts or stages: determining whether there is a perceived need for more and better presentations of such material in the media, and the development of improved means for preparing such reporters or broadcasters. Work began on the first stage of these two consecutive sub-projects in the Spring of 1976.

The First Stage

The first stage of the study centered on an attempt to learn the current status of the quality and quantity of science news writing in the United States, and whether more science writers are needed.

To secure this information, the researcher decided to use a mail survey of 100 persons in the United States who would be qualified to judge science writing quality and quantity. These 100 persons included

34 currently-working science and medical news writers, 33 scientists and medical researchers, and 33 editors of U.S. newspapers and their broadcast counterparts.

A mail survey was used because it was thought to be the cheapest, yet most accurate way to get responses from a wide variety of persons in scattered geographical areas and occupations. The cost would be much lower than personal telephone calls and other forms of personal contact, yet random selection would (ideally) help provide an unbiased sample. 67

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed in an attempt to learn the quality and quantity of current science news coverage in the United States, who is best qualified to cover science news stories, and whether there is a need for more science news writers or reporters, as perceived by the respondents.

Several versions of the questionnaire were worked on until the final version was selected. (See Appendix I for a copy of the final questionnaire and cover letter.) Questions were formulated based on ideas found in the literature, and those of the researcher from his analysis of the problem and its various aspects. At first it was thought that mostly open-ended questions would be used to help elicit respond­ ents' ideas and judgments about the topics of discussion. This method might provide the most leeway for the respondents to answer the ques­ tions while providing a minimum of researcher bias in the process. But then the researcher realized, after studying the literature concerning mail surveys and consulting with specialists, that this type of open- ended questionnaire would be very difficult, if not impossible, to analyze and from which to draw conclusions. Also, respondents are often reluctant to take the time and effort to write out their own answers to such type questions. It was decided, then, to use closed-ended questions for the survey.

In the questionnaire's development, first attention was given to the current coverage of science news in the United States. Closed-ended questions were devised to which the respondent could check whether certain current media operations' coverages of science news were "Very 68

Good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor." For example, he was given the

statement: "Coverage by women's magazines of science and medical news."

If he thought women's magazines covered science and medical news poorly

he checked the "Poor" blank. If he thought it was better, he checked

the "Very Good" or one of the other blanks. Other coverages listed

included overall coverage by magazines and newspapers, radio and tele­

vision, science magazines, news magazines, large newspapers, small

newspapers, public broadcasting, etc. There were 15 questions in this

section.

A second section of the questionnaire dealt with the quality of

science news coverage in the United States. Again, the respondent

checked blanks to indicate whether he thought the quality of science

news coverage for various media was "Very Good," "Fair," or "Poor."

Choices here were similar to those listed in the first section. In­

cluded were questions concerning the "Overall quality of the science

and medical news to which the public has access," plus individual

media operations' coverages such as science magazines, news magazines, women's magazines, large newspapers, small newspapers, radio and tele­ vision, public broadcasting, etc. There were 14 questions in this

section.

A final section of the questionnaire was designed to help learn

the respondents' ideas on who should cover science news stories and whether more science reporters and editors were needed. Here, state­ ments were given such as, "Science and medical news stories should be

covered by experienced and qualified science and medical reporters," and the respondent checked a blank to indicate whether he would 69

Strongly Agree, Agree, was Neutral, would Disagree, or Strongly Dis­

agree with that statement. Other statements included coverage of

science news by general assignment reporters,'either on a "beat" basis

or on a random-assignment basis. Additional questions sought degrees

of agreement on whether more science reporters and editors are needed

by the media today, whether magazines and newspapers specifically need

more,, and if radio and television news staffs require more. A final

question sought information about whether more science reporters will

be needed in the future.

Demographic data about the respondents was also sought. This

included the respondents' occupations, sex, ages, education, and college

major fields of study.

A pilot run with the questionnaire was conducted in Columbus, Ohio.

The questionnaire was hand-delivered to the offices of 10 people who might normally be respondents to the study if chosen randomly. Six of

the 10 contacted chose to complete the questionnaire and consented to

interviews to give their reactions to it. After getting their responses

to questions asked in the interviews, for example, the researcher de­

cided to drop a demographic question concerning income. Several

respondents said they would not answer that question, and one respond­

ent even said he would refuse to answer the questionnaire entirely if

that question were included! Some of the respondents said the questions were too vague in some cases, but other respondents said the same questions were too specific . . . So, most of the questions were left as they had been with the same wording they had had before the pilot test. 70

The Sample

As mentioned before, the survey questionnaire was sent to a sample

of 100 persons, including 34 currently-working science and medical writers, 33 scientists, and 33 newspaper editors and their broadcast

counterparts. These persons either now write science news stories,

furnish information and/or data for them, or are the media "gatekeepers" who decide what stories or parts of stories reach the reading/listening/ viewing public.

The names of the 34 science and medical news writers were chosen on a random basis from membership lists of the National Association of

Science Writers and the Aviation/Space Writers' Association. Each name of a member of the NASW who was currently working for the media in some way was given a number from 1 to 364 on the NASW 1975 Membership

List. A table of random numbers, chosen from Page 153 of Tables of 132 Random Permutations, by Lincoln E. Moses and Robert V. Oakford, was used to selct 25 numbers. Those 25 numbers then identified the 25 names selected from the NASW list. A similar method was used to select names from the 1974-1975 Roster or Membership of the Aviation/Space

Writers Association. Nine of the members of that organization were selected.

The names of the 33 scientists and medical researchers were chosen in a similar random manner from the book, American Men and Women in

Science; The Physical and Biological Sciences. Since the tables of random numbers used here did not come in the handy maximum number corresponding to the over-6,000 pages of the six-volume set, the re­ searcher decided to divide the volumes into groups of one-thousand pages 71

each. A table of random numbers with a maximum possible of 999 was

used. The first page chosen then became zero ("0") plus whatever

random number in the table appeared first, and a name was selected

on that page. The second page chosen then became 1,000 plus a random

number selected from the table: a name was selected on that page also.

The third page chosen then became 2,000 plus a random number; the fourth

page was 3,000 plus a random number; the fifth, 4,000 plus a random

number; the sixth, 5,000 plus a random number; the seventh, 6,000 plus

a random number. The eighth number then went back to zero ("0") plus

a random number, and so on.

The names of the 33 newspaper editors and their broadcast counter­ parts were similarly selected. Random numbers were used to identify page numbers in the Editor and Publisher Yearbook, and editors or city

editors were chosen from those pages' newspapers listed. In addition to the 27 editors selected in this way, 3 radio news directors and

3 television news directors were similarly selected from the Working 128 Press of the Nation.

Administering the Questionnaire

The questionnaire and accompanying survey instruments were sent out at two times. The first time, the questionnaire, a "cover" letter explaining the nature of the survey and requesting assistance, and a stamped, addressed return envelope (No. 9) were sent out on July 26,

1976, to the full 100 potential respondents identified by the random methods mentioned above in a large, stamped No. 10 white envelope.

Colorful, chemistry-oriented stamps were used. There were 47 respond­ ents. 72

A follow-up, second (but identical) questionnaire was sent out with the above-mentioned survey instruments to the 53 non-respondents

of the first attempt on July 1, 1977. Ten additional persons responded

to the follow-up survey, to give a total of 57 respondents or 57 percent.

(Another two persons also responded to the follow-up survey, but since

they had already responded earlier their responses were discarded.)

The questionnaires received back were all coded for recording their information onto IBM computer cards. Their coded answer numbers were recorded ("punched") on the cards, which were then sorted into categories using a card sorter. The results of this survey and the total questionnaire responses are outlined in the following section.

First Stage Results

According to Table 1, and as mentioned above, 57 persons responded to the First Stage survey. Of these, 22 were science or medical news writers, 16 were newspaper editors or broadcast news managers, and 19 were scientists or medical researchers. As Table 1 indicates, the science writers had the largest response rate (65%), followed by the scientists (58%) and the editors (48%). The overall response rate was

57%.

These numbers may be a bit misleading in some cases, however.

Some of the respondents categorized as "science news writers" actually were answering questionnaires sent to editors. The editors in some cases evidently perceived that others knew more about "science writing" than they did, and passed on the questionnaire: an example of this kind of thinking also occurred during the pilot study. Also, some science or 73

TABLE 1

FIRST STAGE RESPONSE RATE

Percent Names of Selected Number Percent Total Randomly Responding Responding Respondents

Science and Medical Writers 34 22 64.7% 38.6%

Scientists and Medical Researchers 33 19 57.6% 33.3%

Editors and Broadcast News Directors 33 16 48.5% 28.1%

Totals 100 57 57.0% 100.0% 74

medical writers to whom questionnaires were sent passed them on. So,

some respondents are evidently not those to whom letters were actually

sent. For the random-selection purposes of this study, however, their

responses are included in this analysis.

Demographic data concerning the first stage respondents follows:

Five females and 52 males responded" to the survey. Five respondents were under 30 years old, 9 were aged 30 to 39, 12 aged 40 to 49, 17 aged

50 to 59, and 12 aged 60 and over. The median age was 50.9 years.

(See Table 2.)

Education of the respondents was generally high. One respondent listed only a high school education, 3 had some college, 12 had bach­ elor's degrees, 9 had attended graduate school, 11 had master's degrees,

1 had worked on a doctorate, 17 had a doctorate, 1 had a medical degree, and 2 persons did not answer that question. The median level of schooling was a master's degree. (See Table 2.)

Fourteen respondents said they had bachelor's degrees in journalism or English, 23 had such degrees in the physical sciences, and 12 had them in the social sciences. Four respondents had master's degrees in journalism or English, 12 in the physical sciences, and 7 in the social sciences. Sixteen had doctorates in the physical sciences or an M.D. degree, and 2 had doctorates in the social sciences. (See Table 3.)

Interpretation of the most important data is more difficult, how­ ever. Analysis of that part of the first stage survey that asks the respondent to judge the media's current coverage of physical science and medical news, the quality of that news coverage, whether more science reporters are needed, and who should cover science news stories follows. 75

TABLE 2

FIRST STAGE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

A) Respondents’ Job Categories D) Respondents' Education Completed

No. (%) No. (%) Science Writers 22 38.6% High School Diploma 1 1.8% Newspaper Editors Attended College 3 5.3% and Broadcast Bachelor's Degrees 12 21.1% Managers 16 28.1% Attended Graduate Scientists and School 9 15.8% Researchers 19 33.3% Master's Degree 11 Totals 57 100.0% 19.3% Work beyond Master's 1 1.8% Doctorate 17 29.8% B) Respondents' Sex Medical Degree 1 1.8% No. (%) No Response __ 2 3.5% Males 52 91.2% Totals 57 100.0% Females __ 5 8.8% Totals 57 100.0%

iq C) Respondents’ Ages

No. (%) Under 30 years 5 8.8% 30 to 39 years 9 15.8% 40 to 49 years 12 21.1% 50 to 59 years 17 29.8% 60 and over 12 21.1% No Response 2 3.5% Totals 57 100.0%

Median age was 50.9 years if the No Responses were not included,

^Median education level was the Master’s Degree. 76

TABLE 3

FIRST STAGE RESPONDENTS’ COLLEGE MAJOR AREAS

Degree Bachelor's Master's Doctorate

Areas

Journalism or English 14 4 0

Physical Sciences 23 12 16

Social Sciences 12 7 2

No Response 8 34 39

——— Totals 57 57 57

In an attempt to make some analytical statements about or judg­

ments concerning the questionnaire responses, the data concerning the

remaining queries were "weighted in a form used by Likert and more

recent researchers. For example, in the questionnaire's first section

concerning the current coverage of science and medical news by the

media, the respondent had the option of checking blanks to indicate

whether he thought media coverages in certain cases was very good, good,

fair or poor. (If he ignored the question and did not answer it, his

reply was coded for analysis as a "Don't Know/No Answer.") If he de­

cided that science magazines covered science and medical news very well,

he might check the "Very Good" blank. His "Very Good" would be weighted as a "3" for our purposes. A check in the blank for "Good" would be weighted as a "2" for our purposes, a check for "Fair" would

be weighted as a "1"; a check for "Poor" would be weighted as "0"; and

if he did not answer the question it would also be weighted as "0". All 77 of the weighted scores for a given question would be added to give the total weighted score. The total weighted score would then be divided by the number of respondents in the group answering the question to give the average weighted score (AWS). By comparing the various average weighted scores, we can then get an idea about which options or questions the respondents considered more important or better than the others.

Using this system, we can see that for the 15 questions regarding media coverage the highest possible average weighted score would be

3.00, corresponding to "Very Good." If one of the average weighted scores approaches that number more than the others, it means that our respondents considered that option or question better or more important than the others. Such is the case regarding "Coverage by specialized magazines such as Scientific American and Science News of science and medical news," which received an AWS of 2.44, approximately halfway between a very good and a good rating. The closest category following this was for "general circulation news magazines such as Newsweek and

Time," which received an AWS of 1.67, far down the scale between good and fair. Then came "the commercial television networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, in specials," with an AWS of 1.54; followed by "large metro­ politan newspapers" with an AWS of 1.47.

The "Overall coverage of science and medical news in magazines and newspapers," received an AWS of 1.44, or about halfway between "Good" and "Fair."

"Public television networks, such as the PBS," received an AWS of

1.35; "Overall coverage . . . in magazines and newspapers" received an 78

AWS of 1.14; and "women’s magazines" received an AWS of .86, or less

than "Fair."

"Public radio stations' staffs" received and AWS of .75; radio and

television's "overall coverage" was .53; "local public television"

received .51; as did "Coverage . . . by the commercial television net­

works, NBC, CBS and ABC, on a daily basis."

"Local commercial television stations' staffs" received an average

weighted score of .28; followed by "commercial radio" with .23; and

"small daily and weekly newspapers" with .14, which is close to "Poor."

(See Table 4.)

A similar system of weighting was used for the second section of

the first stage survey questionnaire responses concerning the "quality

of physical science and medical news coverage in the media." In this

section, however, there were five possible answers which might be

checked instead of four, as in the previous section. The options given were "Very High" (quality), "High" (quality), "Medium," "Fair" and

"Poor." Again, if the respondent checked no answer for a question or

statement his reply was coded for analytical purposes as a "Don't

Know/No Answer."

Because of the increase in options that a respondent might check,

the coding of responses was slightly different. A response of "Very

High" (quality) to a question or statement was weighted as a "4", a response of "High" as a "3", a "Medium" as a "2", a "Fair" as a "1", a "Poor" as a "0" and "Don't Know/No Answer" as a "0". All of the weighted scores would be added to give the total weighted score. The total weighted score would then be divided by the number of respondents 79

TABLE 4

MEDIA COVERAGE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS

Average Very Weighted Weighted Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA Scores Scores

Science Magazines 34 16 5 2 139 2.44

Newsweek and Time 6 31 15 2 3 95 1.67

TV Networks (Specials) 8 25 14 6 4 88 1.54

Large Newspapers 4 28 16 6 3 84 1.47

Public Broadcasting 6 22 15 4 10 77 1.35

Magazines and Newspapers (Overall) 2 13 33 6 3 65 1.14

Women's Magazines 14 21 9 13 49 .86

Public Radio 2 6 25 17 7 43 .75

Radio and Television (Overall) 1 3 21 28 4 30 .53

Local Public Television 3 3 14 29 8 29 .51

TV Networks (Daily) 1 5 16 30 5 29 .51

Local Television 1 13 38 5 16 .28

Commercial Radio 1 10 41 5 13 .23

Small Newspapers 8 45 4 8 .14 Public Access to Science and Medical News (Overall) 8 19 20 6 4 82 1.44

Note: Weighted Scores are calculated as follows: The "Very Good" cate­ gory total was multiplied by 3, the "Good" category total by 2, the "Fair" total by 1, the "Poor" total by 0, and the "DK/NA" total by 0; all scores across were then added. The maximum pos­ sible weighted score was 171 (57 respondents multiplied by 3). The average weighted score was calculated by dividing the total weighted score by 57, the total respondents. 80

in the group answering the question to give the average weighted score.

Again, by comparing the average weighted scores we can see which option

or options on the average the respondents considered more important or

better than the others.

Using this system, we can see that for the 14 questions or state­

ments regarding "the quality of physical science and medical news

coverage in the media," the highest possible average weighted score

would be 4.00, corresponding to "Very High" quality. Again, the more

a particular average weighted score for a given question or statement

approaches that score the more important the respondents considered

that statement or question.

In this section, specialized science magazines such as Scientific

American and Science News were again rated highest in quality of science

news coverage, receiving an average weighted score of 3.28, a rating

between "High" and "Very High." "General circulation magazines such as

Newsweek and Time" again were next, but far down the line, with an

average weighted score of 2.19, which was almost of "Medium" quality.

"Public television networks, such as the PBS," were rated next with an

average weighted score of 1.86, followed by "large metropolitan news­ papers" with an average weighted score of 1.75, both below the "Medium"

quality rating.

The "Overall quality of the science and medical news to which the public has access" received an average weighted score of 1.61, about halfway between "Medium" and "Fair" quality.

The "overall quality of science and medical news in magazines and newspapers" was rated 1.40; the "commercial television networks, NBC, 81

CBS and ABC" received an average weighted score of 1.35; public radio

station broadcasts received 1.14; and women's magazines got 1.07, or

about "Fair" quality.

"Local public television stations" received an average weighted

score of .96, followed by the "overall quality of science and medical

news on radio and television broadcasts" with .95. Down the line was

"local commercial television" with an average weighted score of .63;

"commercial radio station broadcasts" with .60; and "small daily and

weekly newspapers" with .30, which corresponds to a "Poor" quality

rating. (See Table 5.)

The final section of the first stage survey questionnaire sought

to learn respondents’ judgments about who should cover science news

stories and whether they thought more science reporters were needed in

the United States. For our purposes here, this analysis is divided

into two parts dealing with the two separate ideas outlined in the

previous sentence.

The respondents answering the questions or statements in this

section were given the option of checking a blank to indicate their

choices. The options given were that they would "Strongly Agree,"

"Agree," remain "Neutral," would "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree" with the statement. Since these options seem to arrange themselves in

a "positive" or "negative" manner, the weighting here was also done

using positive (+) and negative (-) symbols and selection. A blank

checked to indicate that one would "Strongly Agree" with a statement was weighted as "+2" (plus-two). A check to indicate one would "Agree" was weighted as "+1." If a respondent was neutral on the subject or 82

TABLE 5

QUALITY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA

Average Very Med­ Weighted Weighted High High ium Fair Poor DK/NA Scores Scores

Science Magazines 29 21 4 1 2 187 3.28

Newsweek & Time 3 22 20 7 2 3 125 2.19

Public Television 7 12 17 8 5 8 106 1.86

Large Newspapers 1 13 24 9 7 3 100 1.75

Magazines and News papers (Overall) 7 20 19 7 4 80 1.40

Television Networks 1 6 20 15 11 4 77 1.35

Public Radio 2 6 10 19 13 7 65 1.14

Women's Magazines 6 14 15 10 12 61 1.07

Local Public TV 2 3 11 16 16 9 55 .96

Radio and TV (Overall) 3 11 23 16 4 54 .95

Local Television 1 3 3 17 27 6 36 .63

Commercial Radio 1 7 17 26 6 34 .60

Small Newspapers 2 13 39 3 17 .30

Overall Quality of Science News in the Media 1 9 24 13 6 4 92 1.61

Note: Weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Very High" cate­ gory total was multiplied by 4, the "High" category total by 3, the "Medium" total by 2, the "Fair" by 1, the "Poor" by 0, and the "DK/NA" by 0; all scores across were then added. The maximum pos­ sible weighted score was 228 (57 respondents multiplied by 4). The average weighted score was figured by dividing the total weighted score by 57, the total respondents. statement and checked that blank, his response was coded as a "0". If

the answer was "Disagree," it was coded as "-1" (minus-one), and a

"Strongly Disagree" response was coded as "-2". A "Don't Know/No Response

or Answer" was coded as a "0". The weighted scores would then be added

to give the total weighted score, recorded as either a positive (+) or

negative (-) number. The total weighted score would be divided by the

number of respondents in the group answering the question to give the

average weighted score, which would also be expressed as a positive or negative number. By comparing these average weighted scores for the various statements or questions, we can again get an idea about which

option or options the respondents considered more important or better

than the others.

In the first part of this section, the respondents indicated that

they overwhelmingly thought that "Science and medical news stories should be covered by experienced and qualified specialized science and medical reporters." This statement received an average weighted score of +1.33, very close to the +2.00 maximum, and between the "Agree" and

"Strongly Agree" categories. By an equal but negative number the re­ spondents considered that the statement, "Science and medical news stories should be covered by general assignment reporters on a random basis," was a poor idea. That statement received an average weighted score of

-1.33, between the "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" categories. Also down-rated but by a smaller margin was the statement, "Science and med­ ical news stories should be covered by regular reporters as one of their usual beats," which received an average weighted score of -.74, closer to the "Disagree" category. (See Table 6.) TABLE 6

PERSON WHO SHOULD COVER SCIENCE NEWS

Average Strongly Strongly Weighted Weighted Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree DK/NA Scores Scores

Experienced Science News Reporters 25 26 4 2 +76 +1.33

General Assignment Reporters "Beat"s Coverage 2 8 9 18 18 2 -42 - .74

Randomly Selected General Assignment Reporters 1 6 19 29 2 -76 -1.33

Note: Weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Strongly Agree" total was multiplied by +2, the "Agree" total was multiplied by +1, the "Neutral" total by 0, the "Disagree" total by -1, the "Strongly Disagree" total by -2, and the "DK/NA" total by 0; all scores across were then added. The maximum possible weighted score was + or -114 (57 respondents multiplied by + or -2). The average weighted score was figured by dividing the total weighted score by 57, the total respondents.

00 -p- The second part of the section dealt with whether more science re­

porters and editors are needed in the media. All of the average

weighted scores here were positive, indicating that the respondents

tended to think that such people were, indeed, required. For the

statement, "More well-qualified and capable science and medical news

reporters are needed by the media today," the average weighted score

was +1.26, which indicates that on the average the respondents placed

this option between "Agree" and "Strongly Agree." An identical average

weighted score was recorded for the statement, "More qualified and

capable science and medical news reporters are needed to work on radio

and television news staffs." A slightly less favorable response was

recorded in the form of an average weighted score for the statement,

"More well-qualified and capable science and medical news editors are

needed by the media today," which averaged +1.18, still greater than

simply "Agree." The statement, "More well-qualified and capable science

and medical news reporters are needed to work on magazine and newspaper

staffs," received an average weighted score of +1.09. And the state­

ment, "There will be an increasing need for well-qualified and trained

science and medical news reporters in the future," received an average weighted score of + .81, indicating that even with some difference of

opinion the groups were close to agreement. (See Table 7.)

Conclusions Concerning the First Stage Survey

According to the information uncovered by this study so far, the

American public does have access to science and medical news of high

quality if they choose to seek it out. Specialized magazines such as TABLE 7

NEED FOR MORE SCIENCE REPORTERS

Average Strongly Strongly Weighted Weighted Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree DK/NA Scores Scores

More Science Reporters ARE Needed 23 27 2 1 4 +72 +1.26

More Science Reporters Needed for Broadcast Media 23 26 4 4 +72 +1.26

More Science Editors Needed 20 28 3 1 5- +67 +1.18

More Science Reporters Needed for Print Media 15 32 6 4 +62 +1.09

Future Need for Science Reporters 16 18 15 2 1 5 +46 + . 81

Note: Weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Strongly Agree" total was multiplied by +2, the "Agree" category total was multiplied by +1, the "Neutral" total by 0, the "Disagree" total by -1, the "Strongly Disagree" total by -2, and the "DK/NA" total by 0; all scores across were then added. The maximum possible weighted score was + or -114 (57 respondents multiplied by + or -2). The average weighted score was figured by dividing the total weighted score by 57, the total respondents.

00 CT> 87

Scientific American and Science News, and to a lesser extent, Newsweek and Time as well as some of the other national media, provide top- quality science information with reasonably wide coverage.

Generally, this means that when more time and money are spent for it, better science news coverage occurs. Science magazines, of course, devote all of their time and resources to covering information of scientific and/or medical value. Time and Newsweek magazines usually have special science sections with specialized reporters and researchers doing nothing but science news stories. Television networks sometimes have specials that report science and medical news happenings with excellent coverages and quality— for example, CBS's Walter Cronkite has covered space shots quite well and ABC's Jules Bergman has reported on other scientific developments. The news agencies such as the

Associated Press and United Press International sometimes send science news stories over the "wires," and large metropolitan newspapers nowa­ days often have their own scientific and/or environmental reporters.

For example, the New York Times has Walter Sullivan and the Chicago

Tribune, Casey Bukro. Some of the first stage survey respondents specifically mentioned the excellent coverage on the NOVA program broadcast by public broadcast stations nationwide.

Coverage and quality of science and medical news seem to diminish as one nears the local levels of publications and broadcast media.

Perhaps most of this is due to the fact that less money and time are spent on science and medical news coverages. But even so science news coverage is increasing, though only here and there: CBS's affiliate in Chicago— WBMS-TV— now has its own science reporter. However, as one 88

goes out into the countryside away from the central metropolitan areas,

one finds less and less coverage. And, more people still live away

from the major metropolitan areas today in the United States than

live in them.

Thus, we can make the general statement that as the media attract

greater audiences there is less coverage and lower quality of science

and medical news. Most people tend to read their local papers, watch

their local television shows or listen to local radio stations. Only a relative few, an intellectual or educational "elite," tend to seek out and use those media with better science and medical news coverage.

So, the rest of the people are left with their local media, which characteristically have editors who try to "give the people what they want."

Nevertheless, although recent surveys sponsored by the Newspaper

Advertising Bureau and similar agencies have indicated that many people are interested in a greater volume of science news, as this survey did, there are relatively few science reporters currently on-the-job. More

"experienced and capable" science news reporters are needed to provide more stories of this type. They need more education and/or training than that given to general assignment reporters: education and/or training specifically to qualify them for their special assignments.

They need to know how to write well, as would any good reporter, but they also require some kinds of technical and/or scientific knowledge to help them understand and interpret scientific research and develop­ ments for their reading/viewing publics. 89

So, now we move to the second stage of this study to try to find

out what educational and background experiences would help a potential

science reporter, what skills or competencies he should possess, and who would be the best potential teacher of science writers and what

skills or competencies he should possess.

The Second Stage

Introduction

As was indicated in the previous section, some of the media now do have excellent coverage and quality of science news. Other media are not quite so fortunate, however, and are lacking in "qualified and capable" science news writers or reporters. It is to the latter problem of providing these science news writers and reporters that this stage of the study is oriented.

The respondents in the first stage survey indicated a need for more science and medical news reporters and editors in the media. But we, at this time, do not know how to provide those specialists. Should they be college educated or trained? Should they take special college writing or science courses? Should they avoid college completely in favor of on-the-job training? Who should teach them the skills re­ quired for their jobs?

While the researcher might suggest various approaches to these problems or questions and provide some reasonable, logical answers, their validity would necessarily be questionable since they would come out of his own limited experiences and conditioning. More valid answers would be expected from a variety of experts who would be asked to provide ideas, judgments and/or recommendations. 90

These experts' responses would be analyzed statistically, and conclusions concerning a "best" way of solving these problems would be drawn. From these conclusions, a model curriculum or training plan could be drawn up that should help others train or educate future science writers or reporters.

Again, the researcher was faced with the problem of how to get a large number of opinions concerning "best" ways of training or educat­ ing science news writers from a relatively large number of persons.

Ideally, perhaps, one would conduct personal or phone interviews with randomly-chosen individuals within certain groups. But such interviews would be excessively costly. Instead, a mail survey was selected to help obtain the sought-after information. The populations chosen as information source groups, currently-working science writers, journalism educators, scientists and/or researchers, and newspaper editors, were thought to have the best information or knowledge available relevant to this study. Four hundred of these persons, 100 from each group, were selected randomly to become sources.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed in an attempt to determine re­ spondents' opinions regarding the qualities required for a "good" science news reporter, the experiences which would help him/her obtain those qualities, and the competencies required in teachers of science news reporting. Questions were devised based on such material found in the literature, on conclusions drawn from the first stage study, and ideas developed from the experience of the researcher. Originally in developing this questionnaire, as in the formation of the first stage questionnaire, it was hoped that open-ended questions could be used, in order to ensure that the respondents’ ideas would be as original as possible, free from the researcher's possible bias.

Again, however, reality won out, for it was apparent that most potential respondents would be busy in their normal routines. Thus, having to write lengthy answers to open-ended questions would severly limit the number of responses, and the resulting answers would be difficult to code for statistical analysis. So, closed-ended questions were used throughout most of the questionnaire, with only a few, short open-ended questions used to seek additional information. (The researcher's con­ clusions concerning open- versus closed-ended questions were confirmed by the fact that many second stage respondents completely ignored all open-ended questions. See the questionnaire and cover letter in

Appendix B, and the second stage tables.)

In the questionnaire's development, attention was given to four general areas of preparation for potential science writers or reporters: background education, background experiences, supervised experiences, and competencies that "good" science writers should possess.

Background education was defined by the researcher in terms of college courses that would most benefit potential science writers.

Included in this section were courses of study including physical science, social science, mathematics, English writing, journalism writing, computer programming, etc. The respondent was asked to check a blank before each question or statement to indicate whether he thought that course of study was of "Great Importance," "Moderate 92

Importance," "Little Importance," or "No Importance" to the potential science writer. An open-ended question at the end of this section in­ vited the respondent to in’clude other courses he thought might be beneficial.

Background experiences were defined by the researcher in terms of work experiences that might be of value to potential science reporters or writers. Included here were work as a laboratory researcher, as a general assignment newspaper reporter, as a general assignment broad­ cast reporter, and as a college newspaper reporter. Again, the respond­ ent checked a blank to indicate whether he thought each of those options was of "Great," "Moderate," "Little," or "No Importance" in the prepara­ tion of science reporters. Another open-ended question at the end of this section allowed the respondent to fill in other background expe­ riences he deemed helpful.

Supervised experiences included ideas not always provided in a college or school training program, but some that might be "Important," nonetheless, in the preparation of science news reporters. Included here were informal talks with science reporters, attending seminars in science writing, on-the-job training as a science reporter, internships as science reporters in the news media while getting college course credit, and five others. Respondents again checked a blank to indicate whether they thought the options listed were of "Great," "Moderate,"

"Little," or "No Importance" in the preparation of science writers.

Competencies for "good" science reporters concerned ideas about what skills, knowledge and understandings working science reporters should possess. Included in this section were such things as the 93

ability to "express complex ideas in simple terms," to "define scien­

tific jargon," to "conduct interviews well," to "photograph accompany­

ing materials," and to "meet deadlines," among the 18 questions.

Respondents checked blanks to indicate whether they considered the

listed competencies of "Great," "Moderate," "Little," or "No Usefulness"

to potential science reporters.

The next section of the questionnaire dealt with competencies

important to teachers of potential science news reporters. These com­

petencies included the abilities to teach many of the skills, knowledge

and understandings listed in the previous section, plus special leader­

ship roles that teachers sometimes assume. The respondents again

checked blanks to indicate whether they considered each of the 17 com­

petencies listed of "Great," "Moderate," "Little," or "No Importance"

to teachers of potential science news reporters.

The following questionnaire section was concerned with "who would

be best to teach science news writing courses or workshops." Options

listed here included "experienced science news reporters," "science news editors," "other, editors," "college journalism instructors,"

"college journalism instructors with special science news writing and

reporting training and experience," "scientists or researchers," "a com­ bination of _____ and _____ ," or "Other." The respondent specified which combination he wanted or listed the "other." (These two were

open-ended to that extent.) The respondent was asked to rank these

listed choices from a "high" of "1" to a "low" of "8."

The next questionnaire section dealt with "courses of action for

supplying the media with science news reporters." Listed were various 94

options which included taking science reporting courses, getting a

general journalism degree, completing a science writing internship,

taking no journalism courses, and others, all listed in various combi­

nations. The respondent again ranked the options from a high of "1" to

a low of "7." An open-ended question at the end of the section allowed

the respondent to suggest other "best" courses of action.

Other questions in following sections asked the respondents to

indicate at what college or training level science writing and reporting

instruction should be given, how long science writing workshops should

last, and how long a science writing apprenticeship or internship should

last. The respondent was also asked to indicate whether he thought the

"importance of teaching science news reporting and writing at a college

or university department or school of journalism was "Very Important,"

"Of Medium Importance," or "Not Important."

Finally, the respondent was asked (using an open-ended question)

for additional comments concerning the training of science news re­

porters or writers.

Demographic data about the respondents was also sought. As in

the first stage survey, this included the respondents' occupations,

ages, sex, education, and college major fields of study.

(For all of the possible response options, an additional category was added for "Don't Know/No Answer" for use when coding for computer

analysis.)

The Sample

The second stage survey questionnaire was sent to a sample of 400

persons, including 100 currently-working science and medical writers, 95

100 journalism educators, 100 scientists and/or medical researchers,

and 100 newspaper editors. These groups of persons were chosen because

they either report and write current science news stories, would prob­

ably be concerned or charged with the college training or education of

science news reporters, furnish information and/or data for science

news stories, or are the media "gatekeepers" who decide what stories

or parts of stories reach the reading/listening/viewing public.

The names of 90 science writers/reporters were selected from the

1977 membership list of the National Association of Science Writers.

Every sixth name on the list of about 1,000 names, narrowed down to

include only those 555 names mentioned as working for a media organi­

zation or free lance, was chosen. A pair of dice were thrown to help

select the number of the first name. If the source contacted refused

to answer the query or sent back a questionnaire that had his/her

name on it but was uncompleted, the next name on the list after that

person’s was selected as a potential respondent and a new questionnaire was sent to him/her. An additional 10 names of science writers were

selected in a similar manner from the about 1,200 names on the 127 Aviation/Space Writers Association membership list.

The names of 100 journalism educators were similarly selected from

the 1977 membership list of the Association for Education in Journalism.

Every eleventh name was selected, out of the 1,162 or so listed, unless

an individual was listed as living in a foreign country or no address was given. Here, too, if an individual queried sent back a rejection note, his/her name was eliminated and the next person on the list after 129 the first one queried was sent a questionnaire. 96

The names of the 100 scientists or researchers were selected from

names listed in American Men and Women of Science (The Physical Sci­

ences) , 13th Edition, published in 1976 by R. R. Bowker Company of New

York. A pair of dice was thrown and the number "3” appeared. The

third name down on the left-hand column of pages ending in -34 and -00 was selected so as to give a reasonably random selection based on alphabetical distribution in the six volumes of the edition. About

115,000 names are listed in the edition. Again, the next name after the one initially selected was substituted if an individual sent back

■ 126 a rejection note.„

The names of the 100 editors of daily and weekly newspapers were selected at random according to states listed in the 1977 Editor and

Publisher Yearbook, which lists all commercial newspapers in the 128 United States. Names were selected in each state listing by a throw of two dice: the number on the dice then became the Nth news­ paper listed to be chosen, and the chief editor of that paper was sent a questionnaire. Eight weekly newspaper editors were also selected at random from lists of those papers. Fifty-one daily newspaper editors were initially selected, one per state plus one from Washington, D.C.

Forty-one more daily newspaper editors were selected on a ratio basis from the 19 most populous states, so identified in the 1977 Statistical 130 Abstract of the United States listings of populations. There are about 1,760 daily and 7,460 weekly newspapers in the United States.

Again, if the person listed refused to answer the questionnaire in writing, a similarly-ranked person was chosen from the next paper on the list. 97

The Mailings

The first 400, 4-page booklet-style questionnaires were sent out

to the respondents chosen as mentioned above on August 10, 1978. The

questionnaire, a "cover" letter explaining the study and requesting

the respondent's help, and a stamped, addressed, No. 9 white return

envelope, were enclosed in a stamped and hand-addressed No. 10, long white envelope. Colorful, science-oriented 15b stamps were used to

help attract attention to the envelopes and potentially increase the

response rate. (See the literature concerning mail surveys and the

effects of such stamps on response rates mentioned in Footnote 131.)

On September 11, 1978, a follow-up letter, the same questionnaire,

envelopes, etc., were sent to the 252 persons who up to that time had not answered the first mailing. A cut-off date of November 23, 1978,

Thanksgiving Day, was established as the deadline for all replies.

A total of 232 replies with completed questionnaires were received by November 23, 1978. Broken down, that was 62 science writers and reporters, 71 journalism educators, 56 scientists or researchers, and

43 newspaper editors. An additional three persons' responses were received after the deadline, but were not included in the totals of analyses. (See Table 8.)

Second Stage Results

According to Table 8 and as mentioned above, 232 persons responded to the second stage survey. Of these, 62 or 27% were science writers or reporters; 71 or 31% were journalism educators; 56 or 24% were scientists or researchers; and 43 or 19% were newspaper editors. The 98

TABLE 8

SECOND STAGE RESPONSE RATE

Percent Names of Selected Number Percent Total Randomly Responding Responding Respondents

Science and Medical News Writers 100 62 62% 26.7%

Journalism Educators 100 71 71% 30.6%

Scientists and Medical Researchers 100 56 56% 24.1%

Newspaper Editors 100 43 43% 18.5%

Totals 400 232 58% 100.0%

response rate by group was 62%, 71%, 56% and 43%, respectively, and the overall response rate was 58%, which compared favorably to the researcher’s expectations based on the literature concerning mail 131 surveys. A "normal" mail survey return rate is 55% to 60%, accord­ ing to that literature, and the sample respondents should be repre­ sentative of the population surveyed if the sample is chosen randomly.

Some "sample error" may have occurred, especially in the case of the scientists, however, because of the large number of persons in the

United States in scientific occupations.

A computer cross—tabulation of respondents’ answers to the various survey questions was compiled using the IBM 360 computer at Ohio State

University and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Other statistical analyses were also completed and will be discussed later in this study. 99

Demographic Data

For the category of time of return, overall the respondents tended

to be clustered at or near two times: the times when the first and

second mailings took place. Since the first mailing was on August 10,

1978, it was perhaps only to be expected that the largest number of the

232 returned questionnaires, 135, were received within about 21 days

after that. The number of returns was down until receipt of the

second mailing of September 11, 1978, when they rose again. Altogether,

232 questionnaire responses were received by the November 23, 1978,

cut-off date. (See Table 9.)

Males who returned questionnaires greatly outnumbered females who did so by a rate of 187 to 44, with one person not responding to that question. This result may be because more males than females are listed in Who's Who types of books and are professors, editors or writers.

Even so, the science writer category had the largest percentage of female respondents of the four groups. There were 30.7% or 19 female science writers responding, 21.1% or 15 female journalism educators,

10.7% or 6 female scientists, and 9.3% or 4 newspaper editors. (See

Table 10.)

Ages of the respondents were almost evenly split between those under 50 and those over 50 years of age: 113 to 108, with 11 not re­ sponding to this question. Only 9 were under 30 years of age, 48 from

30 to 39, 56 from 40 to 49, 69 from 50 to 59, and 39 were aged 60 and over. The median age for all respondents was about 50.4 years, and

51.3 for science writers, 47.2 for journalism educators, 50.6 for scientists and researchers, and 52.5 for newspaper editors. (See Table 11.) TABLE 9

SECOND STAGE RESPONSE TIME

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Date Received by No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)

August 20, 1978 55 23.7% 17 27.4% 12 16.9% 14 25.0% 12 27.9% August 31, 1978 80 34.5% 25 40. 3% 26 36.6% 17 30.4% 12 27.9% Sept. 10, 1978 12 5.2% 5 8.1% 3 4.2% 3 5.4% 1 2.3% Sept. 20, 1978 20 8.6% 3 4.8% 6 8.5% 6 10.7% 5 11.6% Sept. 30, 1978 44 19.0% 5 8.1% 17 23.9% 13 23.2% 9 20.9% Oct. 10, 1978 10 4.3% 4 6.5% 3 4.2% 1 1.8% 2 4.7% Oct. 20 and Until Deadline 11 4.7% 3 4.8% 4 5.6% __ 2 3.6% __ 2 4.7%

Totals 232 100.0% 62 100.0% 71 100.0% 56 100.0% 43 100.0% TABLE 10 SECOND STAGE RESPONDENTS* SEX

Science ■ Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Sex No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. <%) No. (%)

Male 187 80.6% 42 67.7% 56 78.9% 50 89.3% 39 90.7%

Female 44 19.0% 19 30.7% 15 21.1% 6 10.7% 4 9.3%

No Answer/Don't Know 1 .4% 1 1.6%

Totals 232 100.0% 62 100.0% 71 100.0% 56 100.0% 43 100.0% 101

I TABLE 11

SECOND STAGE RESPONDENTS' AGES

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Ages No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Under 30 years 9 3.9% 3 4.8% 3 4.2% 3 7.0 % 30 to 39 years 48 20.7% 10 16.1% 21 30.0% 13 23.2% 4 9.3%

40 to 49 years 56 CM T - 16 25.8% 16 22.5% 14 25.0% 10 23.3% 50 to 59 years 69 29.7% 15 24.2% 19 26.8% 17 30.4% 18 41.9% 60 and Over 39 16.8% 15 24.2% 9 12.7% 11 19.6% 4 9.3% No Answer/Don't Know 11 4.7% 3 4.8% __ 3 4.2% _I 1.8% 4 9.3%

Totals 232 100.0% 62 100.0% 71 100.0% 56 100.0% 43 100.0%

Median Age 50.4 51.3 47.2 50.6 52.5

Median Age if "No Answers" le ft out (49.6) (50.3) (46.3) (50.3) (50.8) 102 103

Education of the respondents was far above national averages.

Trends within occupational groups are important here, however, For example, 50 or 89.3% of the 56-member scientist group had doctorates or medical degrees, which was also their median category. And 68 or

95.8% of the 71-member journalism educators group had master's degrees, work on doctorates, or the doctorates themselves. The median category for journalism educators was work on a doctorate. Forty-nine or 79.0% of the 62-member science writers group had bachelor's degrees, addi­ tional graduate work, or master's degrees. The science writers median educational category was work on a master's degree. The 43-member news­ paper editors group included 23 or 53.5% with bachelor's degrees and 11 or 25.6% with graduate work or a master's degree. Their median category was a bachelor's degree. Altogether, 89 respondents or 38.4% of the

232 respondents had doctorates or medical degrees, 16 or 6.9% had worked on doctorates, 48 or 20.7% had master's degrees, 22 or 9.5% had attended graduate school, 44 or 19.0% had bachelor's degrees, and 9 others or

3.9% had attended some college courses. The median educational level for all 232 respondents was a master's degree. (See Table 12.)

Respondents who had received college degrees tended to obtain them primarily in their expected areas of lifetime professional work. For example, none of the scientists reported receiving degrees in journalism,

English or the social sciences. But, also, none of the journalism edu­ cators had degrees in the "hard" or physical sciences. (See Table 13.)

The group whose members had the most degrees in the most areas was that made up of science writers. Of those specifying college majors, there were 33 out of 56 science writer respondents, or 58.9%, with TABLE 12

SECOND STAGE RESPONDENTS' EDUCATION

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Education No. (%) No, (%) No. (%) No. <%) No. (%) High School Diploma 3 1.3% 3 7.0% Attended College 9 3.9% 5 8.1% 4 9.3% Bachelor's Degree 44 19.0% 17 27.4% 1 1.4% 3 5.4% 23 53.5% Attended Craduate School 22 9.5% 15 24.2% 2 2.8% 1 1.8% 4 9.3% Master's Degree 48 20.7% 17 27.4% 23 32.4 % 1 1.8% 7 16.3% Doctoral Work 16 6.9% 2 3.2% 13 18. 3% 1 1.8% Doctorate 83 35.8% 6 9.7% 32 45.1% 44 78.6 % 1 2.3% Medical Degree 6 2.6% 6 10.7% No Answer/Don't Know 1 .4% 1 2.3%

Totals 232 100.0% 62 100.0% 71 100.0% 56 100.0% 43 100.0%

Median Education Master's Attended Doctoral Doctorate Bachelor's Degree Graduate Work or M.D. Degree School 104 TADLE 13

SECOND STAGE RESPONDENTS' COLLEGE MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors k k * A k Degree and Malor No. (%) No. (Z) No. (%) No. (Z) No. <%) Bachelor's Degree: Journalism/English I ll 54.4 33 58.9 55 78.6 23 76.7 Hard Sciences 64 31.4 16 28.6 47 97.9 1 3.3 Social Sciences 19 9.3 3 5.4 10 14.3 6 20.0 Others 10 4.9 4 7.1 5 7.1 1 2.1 Total Answering 204 100.0 56 100.0 70 100.0 48 100.0 30 100.0 No Answer 28 6 1 8 13 Master's Degree: Journalism/English 75 54.0 13 44.8 53 80.3 9 81.8 Hard Sciences 39 28.1 6 20.7 33 100.0 Social Sciences 15 10.8 7 24.1 7 10.6 1 9.1 Others 10 7.2 3 10.3 6 9.1 1 9.1 Total Answering 139 100.0 29 100.0 66 100.0 33 100.0 11 100.0 No Answer 93 33 5 23 32 Doctorate or M.D.: Journalism/English 24 24.2 24 55.8 Hard Sciences 54 54.6 3 60.0 50 100.0 1 100.0 Social Sciences 13 13.1 1 20.0 12 27.9 Others 8 8.1 1 20.0 7 16.3 Total Answering 99 100.0 5 100.0 43 100.0 50 100.0 1 100.0 No Answer 133 57 28 6 42 Total Respondents 232 62 71 56 43 * Percent of those answering this question. 106

journalism or English bachelor's degrees, 16 or 28.6% with hard or

physical sciences degrees, 3 or 5.4% with degrees in the social sciences,

and 4 or 7.1% with degrees in other fields. Of those in this group

specifying college majors, there were more English or journalism master's

degrees, 13 or 44.8%, than master's degrees in the hard sciences, 6 or

20.7%, the social sciences, 7 or 24.1%, or other areas combined, 3 or

10.3%. However, 3 respondents in this group had doctorates in the hard

sciences, or 60% of the science writers with doctorates, one had a

doctorate in the social sciences, or 20%, and one had a doctorate in

another field, or 20%.

Journalism educators who specified college degrees mentioned 55 bachelor's degrees or 78.6% in journalism or English, 10 or 14.3% in

the social sciences, and 5 or 7.1% in other fields. Their specified master's degrees included 53 or 80.3% in English or journalism, 7 or

10.6% in the social sciences, and 6 or 9.1% in other fields. Doctorates

specified included 24 or 55.8% in journalism or communications, 12 or

27.9% in the social sciences, and 7 or 16.3% in other fields.

Scientists and researchers specified bachelor's degrees included

47 or 97.9% in the hard or physical sciences and 1 or 2.1% in other fields. Master's degrees specified for this group were 33 or 100% in the hard sciences. Doctorates or medical degrees specified were also all categorized as in the hard sciences, 50 or 100%.

Newspaper editors who specified bachelor's degrees included 23 or

76.7% in English or journalism, 1 or 3.3% in the hard sciences, and 6 or 20.0% in the social sciences. Master's degrees specified for this group included 9 or 81.8% in English or journalism, 1 or 9.1% in the 107 social sciences, and 1 or 9.1% in other fields. One respondent in this group, of 100% of those so specifying, said he had a doctorate— in the hard sciences.

(Counts and percentages in the above breakdowns may be less or greater than 100% of those indicating they possessed identified degrees reflected in Table 12, depending on whether all respondents filled in majors or checked appropriate places on the questionnaire. Compare

Tables 12 and 13.)

A Composite Picture of Second Stage Respondents Based on Demographic Data

Based on the above-mentioned demographic data, the following

"composite" picture of the various respondents might be drawn:

1) The "typical" science writer responding to this stage of the study was a male in his early 50's, with a college bachelor's degree and some graduate work, possibly a master's degree. He probably majored in journalism or English in college, but also took some science courses as well.

2) The "typical" journalism educator responding to this stage of the study was in his mid-40's, but possessed more college education, at least a master's degree plus work on a doctorate. His major was prob­ ably journalism or communications, with a strong emphasis on the social sciences and few, if any, hard or physical science courses.

3) The "typical" scientist or medical researcher responding to this stage of the study was just past 50 years of age, and possessed a doc­ torate or medical degree. He majored in college in the physical or hard sciences or medicine. 108

4) The "typical" newspaper editor responding to this stage of the study was also a male in his 50's, but with less college education than any "typical" respondent in the other,groups- He received his bachelor's degree in English or journalism, with much more emphasis on the social sciences than the physical sciences.

Answers to Survey Questions

As was mentioned above, most of the questions included in this second stage questionnaire were set up so that the respondents selected responses according to whether they thought a particular suggestion or requirement was important or useful in the training or education of potential science news reporters, or for the teachers of such reporters.

The responses were for the most part broken down into four categories on the questionnaire and the respondent had only to check that answer that best approximated his opinion or evaluation. The four possible re­ sponses in most cases were: "Great Importance or Usefulness," "Moderate

Importance or Usefulness," "Little Importance or Usefulness," and "No

Importance or Usefulness." When responses were coded for computer analysis, a fifth category was added for "Don't Know or No Answer."

For analytical purposes, most responses were then weighted in a

Lykert-style manner. That is, for all of the responses of "Great Im­ portance" (or Usefulness), the total group figure was multiplied by three. All of the responses of "Moderate Importance" (or Usefulness) were multiplied by two, for each question or option given. All of the responses of "Little Importance" (or Usefulness) were multiplied by one.

All of the responses of "No Importance" (or Usefulness) were multiplied by zero, as were the "Don't Know/No Answer" figures. The resulting 109

weighted totals were added together to arrive at a grand total answer

for each question or option. This grand total was then divided by the

number of respondents for the group in question to provide an average

weighted score (AWS).

By comparing the average weighted scores for each answer to the

highest potential average weighted score for each question or option,

and comparing the average weighted score for each question to those of

the other questions, a ranking of the items can be made in terms of their

relative importance or usefulness. For example, an average weighted

score of 2.61 for a question or option out of a potential average

weighted score of 3.00 may be interpreted to mean that the respondents

thought that that question's idea was of "Great Importance," and of much

greater importance in the training of science news writers or reporters

than a question or option that had an average weighted score of only .70.

Indeed, an average weighted score of 2.61 can even be interpreted as

being closer to "Great Importance" than "Moderate Importance."

(i) Background Education

As was indicated before, this section of the second stage question­

naire dealt with college courses that may be valuable to potential sci­

ence writers or reporters. The respondents checked blanks to indicate

whether they thought the courses listed were of "Great," "Moderate,"

"Little," or "No Importance." Average weighted scores (AWS) were deter­

mined as mentioned above.

(A) Assessing average weighted scores, all respondents in general

considered completion of physical science courses in college as the most

important background educational prerequisite in the training of science 1 1 0

news reporters. Physical science courses responses when tabulated pro­

vided an average weighted score of 2.61 out of the 3.00 maximum possible.

Completion of a good, liberal arts education was rated next overall. It

received an AWS of 2.50 for the four respondent groups, halfway between

"Great" and "Moderate Importance." English and journalism writing

courses ranked third and fourth in importance, according to the respond­

ents' answers, with average weighted scores of 2.35 and 2.31, respec­

tively.

Then came a jump to those courses considered of less than "Moderate"

importance, or an AWS of less than 2.00. The social science courses had

an AWS of 1.92, and mathematics courses received an AWS of 1.88. Much further down in importance came computer programming courses with an AWS

of 1.28 and foreign language courses with an AWS of 1.27, followed by

photography courses with an AWS of 1.13. Art and drawing courses ranked

lowest among these identified questionnaire choices with an AWS of .72,

or less than "Little Importance." Other courses, which the respondents

had to identify themselves, as a category received an AWS of .70 overall.

(See Tables 14 and 15 for a complete breakdown of responses average

weighted scores by category of respondents, and Table 16 for a breakdown

of the "Other Courses" suggestions.)

Other college courses listed as important for science news report­

ers by the respondents, in response to the open-ended question mentioned

above, included biological science courses, with 33 persons suggesting

some type of them; philosophy and the social sciences, with 12 each;

literature and history courses, with 5 each; and other physical sciences,

with 4. Other suggestions included research and theory courses (2), TABLE 14 SUGGESTED BACKGROUND EDUCATION (Average Weighted Scores) Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Course of Study ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Physical Sciences Courses 2.61 2..47 2.69 2.71 2.53 Liberal Arts Courses 2.50 2..58 2.68 2.30 2.37 English Writing Courses 2.35 2.,31 2.08 2.61 2.53 Journalism Writing Courses 2.31 2..03 2.65 2.20 2.28 Social Sciences Courses 1.92 1..94 2.13 1.63 1.95 Mathematics Courses 1.88 1.,55 2.01 2.05 1.91 Computer Programming Courses 1.28 ,92 1.61 1.32 1.21 Foreign Language Courses 1.27 1,,19 1.48 1.05 1.30 Photography Courses 1.13 1.15 1.21 .95 1.19 Art and Drawing Courses .72 .63 .77 .79 .67 Other Courses .70 ,87 .51 1.09 .28

Note: Average weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Great Importance" category total for each question was multiplied by 3, the "Moderate Importance" category total was multiplied by 2, the "Little Importance" category by 1, the "No Importance" category by 0, and the "Don't Know/No Answer" totals by 0; a ll scores across were then added. The maximum possible weighted score was 696 (232 times 3) for a ll respondents, 186 for the 62 science writers, 213 for the 71 journalism educators, 168 for the 56 scien tists, and 129 for the 43 news­ paper editors. Each total question weighted score was divided by the respective sample size to give the average weighted scores. 1 1 2

TABLE 15

BACKGROUND EDUCATION BY GROUP (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators Liberal Arts Courses 2.58 Physical Science Courses 2.69 Physical Sciences 2.47 Liberal Arts Courses 2.68 English Writing Courses 2.31 Journalism Writing 2.65 Journalism Writing 2.03 Social Sciences 2.13 Social Sciences 1.94 English Writing Courses 2.08 Mathematics 1.55 Mathematics 2.01 Foreign Languages 1.19 Computer Programming 1.61 Photography 1.15 Foreign Languages 1.48 Computer Programming .92 Photography 1.21 Other Courses .87 Art & Drawing Courses .77 Art & Drawing Courses .63 Other Courses .51

Scientists & Researchers Newspaper Editors Physical Sciences 2.71 Physical Sciences Courses 2.53 English Writing Courses 2.61 English Writing Courses 2.53 Liberal Arts Courses 2.30 Liberal Arts Courses 2.37 Journalism Writing 2.20 Journalism Writing 2.28 Mathematics 2.05 Social Sciences 1.95 Social Sciences 1.63 Mathematics 1.91 Computer Programming 1.32 Foreign Languages 1.30 Other Courses 1.09 Computer Programming 1.21 Foreign Languages 1.05 Photography 1.19 Photography .95 Art & Drawing Courses .67 Art & Drawing Courses . 79 Other Courses .28 TABLE 16

OTHER COLLEGE COURSES SUGGESTED AS BACKGROUND EDUCATION

ALL Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Subject or Area Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Biological Sciences 33 13 15

Social Sciences 12 3 1

Philosophy 12 5 3

Literature 5 1 2 History (including History of Science) 5 1 3

Other Physical Sciences 4 1 1

Research and Theory 2 Specialized Subjects or Special Interest Field 2 Art and Graphics 1

Don’t Know/No Answer 156 36 52 31 37 114 specialized subjects or fields (2), and arts and graphics types of courses (1). (See Table 16)

(B) Group spreads for background education varied. Although the largest percentage of respondents as measured by average weighted scores

(AWS) said that the physical science courses were of the most importance in the preparation of science reporters, with an AWS of 2.61, this varied as follows within the individual groups: science writers, 2.47; news­ paper editors, 2.53; journalism educators, 2.69; and scientists or researchers, 2.71.

Liberal arts courses were rated next in overall importance, with an

AWS of 2.50, which was halfway between "Great" and "Moderate Importance."

The AWS breakdown by group was more varied, however: scientists, 2.30; newspaper editors, 2.37; science writers, 2.58; and journalism educa­ tors, 2.68.

English writing courses were rated next with an AWS of 2.35 over­ all. The breakdown again varied considerably: journalism educators,

2.08; science writers, 2.31; newspaper editors, 2.53; and scientists,

2.61.

The journalism writing courses fared slightly worse than the Eng­ lish writing courses did overall, with an AWS of 2.31. The journalism courses received average weighted scores of 2.03 from the science writers, 2.20 from the scientists, 2.28 from the newspaper editors, and

2.65 from the journalism educators.

Social science courses were rated next in overall importance, with an AWS of 1.92, which again was below "Moderate" importance. The break­ down was: scientists, 1.63; science writers, 1.94; newspaper editors, 115

1.95; and journalism educators, 2.13.

Mathematics courses were rated next with an overall AWS of 1.88.

The breakdown was: science writers, 1.55; newspaper editors, 1.91; journalism educators, 2.01; and scientists, 2.05.

Computer programming courses were rated much lower with an AWS of

1.28 overall. The breakdown was: science writers, .92; newspaper edi­ tors, 1.21; scientists, 1.32; and journalism educators, 1.61.

Foreign language courses were almost similarly rated with an over­ all AWS of 1.27. However, the breakdown was much different: scientists,

1.05; science writers, 1.19; newspaper editors, 1.30; and journalism educators, 1.48.

Photography courses were rated slightly lower with an AWS of 1.13 overall, or of "Little" importance. The breakdown was: scientists,

.95; science writers, 1.15; newspaper editors, 1.19; and journalism educators, 1.21.

Art and drawing courses were ranked lowest among the choices offered with an AWS of .72. The breakdown was: science writers, .63; newspaper editors, .67; journalism educators, .77; and scientists, .79.

(See Tables 14 and 15.)

A final choice of other courses required the respondent to fill in suggested courses. (See totals and breakdowns also in Table 16.)

(ii) Background Experiences

This section of the questionnaire dealt with the process of identi­ fying work experiences that may be of value to potential science news reporters or writers. Again the respondent checked blanks to indicate 116

whether he thought the option listed was of great, moderate, little or

no importance. Responses were weighted, and an average weighted score

(AWS) was determined as mentioned above for each option by each group

for comparison and analysis.

(A) Assessing average weighted scores, all respondents in general

considered that work as a newspaper general’ assignment reporter would be

most helpful in the background preparation of a science news reporter.

This option was rated most highly among the background experiences named,

receiving an AWS of 2.47 out of the 3.00 maximum possible, about halfway

between "Great" and "Moderate Importance." Work as a laboratory re­

searcher followed that experience, but with much less support, receiving

an AWS of 1.91, below of "Moderate Importance." Work as a college news­

paper reporter was below that with an AWS of 1.74, and work as a general

assignment broadcast reporter last among the options listed with an AWS

of 1.48, halfway between "Moderate" and "Little Importance." (See

Tables 17 and 18.)

Other background experiences suggested for science news reporters by the respondents in response to an open-ended question included: knowing the scientific method, with 25 proponents; work as an editor or other English language background, with 11 proponents; and contact with scientists and researchers, with 9 proponents. Learning about people was rated next, with 6 proponents; then continuous wide reading, with 4; and typing and shorthand, with 1. (See Table 19.)

(B) Group spreads for background experiences varied. Although the largest percentage of respondents as measured by average weighted scores

(AWS) suggested that work as a general assignment newspaper reporter TABLE 17 SUGGESTED BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES (Average Weighted Scores)

Science ALL Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Description Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Newspaper Reporter 2.A7 2.53 2.52 2.1A 2.70 Laboratory Researcher 1.91 1.77 1.96 2.1A 1.70 College Paper Reporter 1.7A 1.82 1.86 1.50 1.7A Broadcast Reporter 1.A8 1.81 1.A8 1.30 1.23 Other Work Experiences .36 .AA . A5 .25 .26

Note: Average weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Great Importance” category total for each question was multiplied by 3, the "Moderate Importance" category total was multiplied by 2, the "Little Importance" category by 1, the "No Importance" category by 0, and the "Don't Know/No Answer" totals by 0; a ll scores across in each group were then added. The maximum possible weighted score for a ll respondents was 696 (232 times 3), 186 for the 62 science writers, 213 for the 71 journalism educators, 168 for the 56 scien tists, and 129 for the A3 newspaper editors. Each total question weighted score was divided by the respective sample size to give the average weighted scores. 118

TABLE 18

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES BY GROUP (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators

Newspaper Reporter 2.53 Newspaper Reporter 2.52

College Paper Reporter 1.82 Laboratory Researcher 1.96

Broadcast Reporter 1.81 College Paper Reporter 1.86

Laboratory Researcher 1.77' Broadcast Reporter 1.48

Other Work Experiences .44 Other Work Experiences .45

Scientists & Researchers Newspaper Editors

Newspaper Reporter 2.14 Newspaper Reporter 2.70

Laboratory Researcher 2.14 College Paper Reporter 1.74

College Paper Reporter 1.50 Laboratory Researcher 1.70

Broadcast Reporter 1.30 Broadcast Reporter 1.23

Other Work Experiences .25 Other Work Experiences . 26 TABLE 19 OTHER SUGGESTED BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES

Journalism ALL Science Scientists/ Newspaper Description Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Learning the Scientific Method and Research Techniques 25 10 Work as an Editor, Reporter or Language Specialist 11 Contact with Scientists and Researchers 9 Learn about People (Sales or PR Experience) 6 Continuous Wide Reading A Typing and Shorthand 1

Don1t Know/No Answer 176 A1 55 A4 36 119 1 2 0

would be most beneficial in the preparation of science reporters, which

received an AWS of 2.47 out of the 3.00 maximum, this varied widely

among the individual groups. Scientist respondents had an AWS of 2.14;

journalism educators, 2.52; science writers, 2.53; and newspaper editors,

2.70.

Work as a laboratory researcher was ranked next in importance with

an AWS of 1.91. The average weighted score breakdown was: newspaper editors, 1.70; science writers, 1.77; journalism educators, 1.96; and scientists, 2.14.

Work as a college newspaper reporter was rated next in importance with an overall AWS of 1.74. The breakdown was: scientists, 1.50; newspaper editors, 1.74; science writers, 1.82; and journalism educa­ tors, 1.86.

Lowest rated according to our sources was work as a general assign­ ment broadcast reporter, with an AWS of 1.48. The breakdown was: news­ paper editors, 1.23; scientists, 1.30; journalism educators, 1.48; and science writers, 1.81. (See Tables 17 and 18.)

(iii) Supervised or Other Experiences

This section of the second stage survey questionnaire dealt with the identification of additional, more informal or non-scholastic expe­ riences that might be of value to potential science writers or reporters.

Again, the respondent checked blanks to indicate whether he thought the option listed was of great, moderate, little, or no importance. Scores were weighted and average weighted scores determined as mentioned above for comparison and analysis. 1 2 1

(A) Assessing average weighted scores, all respondents in general considered that on-the-job training would be most beneficial of those experiences listed to potential science news reporters. This category received an AWS of 2.66 of the 3.00 maximum possible. Attending scien­ tific workshops and conventions followed with an AWS of 2.47, or halfway between "Great" and "Moderate Importance." That was followed by attend­ ing scientific and medical lectures with an AWS of 2.38, attending science writing seminars AND completing science writing internships, with an AWS of 2.37 each. Accompanying working science reporters on-the- job was next with an AWS of 2.33, and informal talks with science re­ porters nearby with an AWS of 2.27, or approaching "Moderate Importance."

The point spread for the previous five categories was very close, as the reader may have observed. Then there was a big jump to those last two categories down the list: playing chess, with an AWS of .93; and reading science fiction, with an AWS of .88, which were not much favored by the respondents and rated below of "Little Importance." (See Tables 20 and

21.)

(B) Group spreads for the Supervised or Other Experiences varied.

The largest average weighted score (AWS) tabulated was for on-the-job training, with 2.66. The AWS breakdown by group was: scientists, 2.52; newspaper editors, 2.63; journalism educators, 2.69; and science writers,

2.76.

Attending scientific and medical workshops and conventions was the next most highly-rated category, receiving an AWS of 2.47. The AWS breakdown was: newspaper editors, 2.19; science writers AND scientists,

2.52; and journalism educators, 2.58. TABLE 20

OTHER EXPERIENCES SUGGESTED FOR POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors

On-the-Job Training 2.66 2.76 2.69 2.52 2.63 Attending Workshops and Conventions 2.67 2.52 2.58 2.52 2.19 Attending Scientific Lectures 2.38 2.66 2.61 2.38 2.23 Internships as Science Reporters 2.37 2.36 2.58 2.09 2.62 Attending Science Writing Seminars 2.37 2.26 2.68 2.32 2.62 Accompanying Science Reporters On-the-Job 2.33 2.32 2.26 2.36 2.67 Informal Talks with Science Reporters 2.27 2.21 2.37 2.27 2.21 Playing Chess and Other Abstract Games .93 .69 .99 1.06 1.05 Reading Science Fiction .88 .79 1.00 .82 .91

Note: Average weighted scores were calculated as follows: The "Great Importance" category total for each question was multi­ plied by 3, the "Moderate Importance" category total waa multiplied by 2, the "Little Importance" category by 1, the "No Importance" category by 0, and the "Don't Know/No Answer" totals by 0; a ll scores in each group were then added. The maximum possible weighted score for a ll respondents was 696 (232 times 3), 186 for the 62 science writers, 213 for the 71 journalism educators, 168 for the 56 scien tists, and 129 for the 63 newspaper editors. Each total question weighted score was divided by the respective sample size to give the average weighted score. 122 123

TABLE 21

OTHER EXPERIENCES SUGGESTED FOR POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUP (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators On-the-Job Training 2.76 On-the-Job Training 2.69 Attending Workshops Internships as and Conventions 2.52 Science Reporters 2.58 Attending Scientific 2.44 Attending Workshops Lectures and Conventions 2.58 Internships as Attending Science Science Reporters 2.34 Writing Seminars 2.48 Accompanying Science Attending Scientific Reporters On-the-Job 2.32 Lectures 2.41 Attending Science Informal Talks with Writing Seminars 2.26 Science Reporters 2.37 Informal Talks with Accompanying Science Science Reporters 2.21 Reporters On-the-Job 2.24 Reading Science Fiction .79 Reading Science Fiction 1.00 Playing Chess and Other Playing Chess and Abstract Games .69 Other Abstract Games .99

Scientists and Researchers Newspaper Editors On-the-Job Training 2.52 On-the-Job Training 2.63 Attending Workshops Accompanying Science and Conventions 2.52 Reporters On-the-Job 2.47 Attending Scientific Internships as Lectures 2.38 Science Reporters 2.42 Accompanying Science Attending Science Reporters On-the-Job 2.36 Writing Seminars 2.42 Attending Science Attending Scientific Writing Seminars 2.32 Lectures 2.23 Informal Talks with Informal Talks with Science Reporters 2.27 Science Reporters 2.21 Internships as Attending Workshops Science Reporters 2.09 and Conventions 2.19 Playing Chess and Playing Chess and Other Abstract Games 1.04 Other Abstract Games 1.05 Reading Science Fiction .32 Reading Science Fiction .91 124

Attending scientific and medical lectures was the next highest-

rated category, with an AWS of 2.38. The breakdown by group was:

newspaper editors, 2.23; scientists, 2.38; journalism educators, 2.41;

and science writers, 2.44.

Next-rated were attending seminars in science writing and completing

internships in the mass media, with an AWS of 2.37 each. The breakdown

for attending science writing seminars was: science writers, 2.26;

scientists, 2.32; newspaper editors, 2.42; and journalism educators,

2.48. The breakdown for the category, internships as science reporters

in the mass media while getting college course credit, was: scientists,

2.09; science writers, 2.34; newspaper editors, 2.42; and journalism educators, 2.58.

The next category with an AWS of 2.33 was accompanying science reporters on-the-job for several days. The breakdown was: journalism educators, 2.24; science writers, 2.32; scientists, 2.36; and newspaper editors, 2.47.

Then came informal talks with science reporters with an AWS of

2.27. The group breakdown was: science writers and newspaper editors,

2.21; scientists, 2.27; and journalism educators, 2.37.

Last and rated far down in importance were playing chess and other games involving abstract thinking with an AWS of .93, and reading science fiction with an AWS of .88. The playing chess breakdown was: science writers, .69; journalism educators, .99; scientists, 1.04; and newspaper editors, 1.05. The reading science fiction breakdown was: science writers, .79; scientists, .82; newspaper editors, .91; and journalism educators, 1.00. (See Tables 20 and 21.) 125

(iv) Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters

This section of the second stage survey questionnaire dealt with

the identification of skills, knowledge and understandings that might prove of importance for potential science news writers or reporters.

Again, weighted scores for the options listed were totaled and average weighted scores figured as mentioned before for comparison and analysis.

The categories here, however, were for great, moderate, little, or no usefulness.

(A) Assessing average weighted scores, all respondents in general

considered that the ability to express complex ideas in simple terms was the most important competency among those listed that a science writer should possess. This category received an AWS of 2.94 out of the

3.00 maximum possible AWS, or a rating of "Great Usefulness." The next highest-rated competencies were the abilities to write well organized, logical news stories, with an AWS of 2.84, and to conduct interviews well, with an AWS of 2.83. They were followed closely by the ability to analyze and interpret research for lay readers, with an AWS of 2.79, and the ability to define scientific jargon, with an AWS of 2.78.

The next most highly-rated competencies were the ability to prepare questions in advance for scientific interviews, with an AWS of 2.69; the ability to spot errors in and edit one's own work, with an AWS of 2.67; and the ability to find analogies to help explain complex ideas, with an

AWS of 2.61. The ability to meet deadlines was rated next among the respondents with an AWS of 2.58; followed by a wide knowledge of and familiarity with scientific terminology with an AWS of 2.55; the ability to cover scientific speeches and conventions with an AWS of 2.49; and an 126 understanding of legal and ethical problems involved in writing scien­ tific news stories with an AWS of 2.47. The ability to solve problems that science reporters may face on-the-job was similarly rated with an

AWS of 2.47, about halfway between "Great" and "Moderate" usefulness.

Down the list much further we find the ability to write informative, catchy story leads, with an AWS of 2.03, about "Moderate" usefulness, followed by the ability to do simple research to learn about scientific ideas and innovations, with an AWS of 1.92. Much further down in our ratings scale we find the ability to take photographs, with an AWS of

1.31; the knowledge of body language, with an AWS of 1.27; and the ability to process photographs in a darkroom rated lowest, with an AWS of .79, or below "Little" usefulness. (See Tables 22, 23 and 24.)

(B) Competencies required for science writers varied among the respondent groups. Responses were quite close among the respondent groups for "the ability to express complex ideas in simple terms," which received an AWS of 2.94, or nearly of "Great" usefulness. The average weighted scores by groups were: scientists, 2.91; journalism educators,

2.92; science writers and newspaper editors, 2.98.

The abilities to write well-organized, logical news stories and to conduct interviews well were the next most highly-rated options, with average weighted scores of 2.84 and 2.83, respectively. The AWS break­ down by group for writing well was: journalism educators, 2.75; scien­ tists, 2.79; science writers, 2.92; and newspaper editors, 2.93. The

AWS breakdown by group for conducting interviews well was: scientists,

2.71; science writers, 2.82; newspaper editors, 2.84; and journalism educators, 2.93. 127

TABLE 22 SUGGESTED COMPETENCIES FOR POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS (Average Weighted Scores) ScienceJournalismScientists/Newspaper Description All Writers Educators Researchers Editors Express complex ideas in simple terms 2.94 2.98 2.92 2.91 2.98 Write well-organized, logical news stories 2.84 2.92 2.75 2.79 2.93 Conduct interviews well 2.83 2.82 2.93 2.71 2.84 Analyze and interpret research for readers 2.79 2.84 2.76 2.79 2.79 Define scien tific jargon 2.78 2.79 2.79 2.70 2.38 Prepare questions in advance for interviews 2.69 2.68 2.75 2.59 2.74 Spot errors in and edit own work 2.67 2.63 2.69 2.64 2.72 Find analogies to help explain complex ideas 2.61 2.68 2.61 2.48 2.70 Meet deadlines 2.58 2.69 2.62 2.23 2.79 Knowledge and familiarity with science terminology 2.55 2.50 2.55 2.61 2.53 Cover speeches and scien tific conventions 2.49 2.58 2.59 2.23 2.53 Solve science reporting problems 2.47 2.55 2.45 2.41 2.44 Understand legal and ethical problems 2.47 2.39 2.54 2.41 2.58 Write informative leads 2.03 2.29 2.04 1.63 2.14 Do simple research to learn scientific ideas 1.92 1.79 2.03 1.77 2.12 Know photography 1.31 1.44 1.30 1.14 1.40

Know body language 1.27 1.10 1.46 1.21 1.28

Process photographs .79 .65 .85 .77 .93

Note: Average weighted scores were calculated as mentioned in previous tables. 128

TABLE 23

SUGGESTED COMPETENCIES FOR POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUP (Average Weighted Scores)

Scientists and Researchers Newspaper Editors Express complex ideas Express complex ideas in simple terms 2.91 in simple terms 2.98 Write well-organized, Write well-organized, logical news stories 2.79 logical news stories 2.93

Analyze and interpret Define scien tific jargon 2.88 research for readers 2.79 Conduct interviews well 2.84 Conduct interviews well 2.71 Analyze and interpret Define scien tific jargon 2.70 research for readers 2.79 Spot errors in Meet deadlines 2.79 and edit own work 2.64 Prepare questions in Knowledge and fam iliarity advance for interviews 2.74 with science terminology 2.61 Spot errors in Prepare questions in and- edit own work 2.72 advance for interviews 2.59 Find analogies to help Find analogies to help explain complex ideas 2.70 explain complex ideas 2.48 Understand legal and Solve science reporting ethical problems 2.58 problems 2.41 Knowledge and familiarity Understand legal with science terminology 2.53 and ethical problems 2.41 Cover speeches and Meed deadlines 2.23 scien tific conventions 2.53 Cover speeches and Solve science scien tific conventions 2.23 reporting problems 2.44 Do simple research to Write informative leads 2.14 learn scientific ideas 1.77 Do simple research to learn Write informative leads 1.63 scientific ideas 2.12 Know body language 1.21 Know photography 1.40 Know photography 1.14 Know body language 1.28 Process photographs .77 Process photographs .93 129

TABLE 24

SUGGESTED COMPETENCIES FOR POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUP (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators Express complex ideas Conduct interviews well 2.93 in simple terms 2.98 Express complex ideas Write well-organized, in simple terms 2.92 logical news stories 2.92 Define scien tific jargon 2.79 Analyze and interpret research for readers 2.84 Analyze and interpret research for readers 2.76 Conduct interviews well 2.82 Write well-organized, Define scien tific jargon 2.79 logical news stories 2.75 Meet deadlines 2.69 Prepare questions in advance for interviews 2.75 Prepare questions in advance for interviews 2.68 Spot errors in and edit own work 2.69 Find analogies to help explain complex ideas 2.68 Meet deadlines 2.62 Spot errors in and Find analogies to help edit own work 2.63 explain complex ideas 2.61 Cover speeches and Cover speeches and scien tific conventions 2.58 scien tific conventions 2.59 Solve science Knowledge and familiarity reporting problems 2.55 with science terminology 2.55 Knowledge and familiarity Understand legal and with science terminology 2.50 ethical problems 2.54 Understand legal Solve science and ethical problems 2.39 reporting problems 2.45 Write informative leads 2.29 Write informative leads 2.04 Do simple research to Do simple research to learn scientific ideas 1.79 learn scientific ideas 2.03 Know photography 1.44 Know body language 1.46 Know body language 1.10 Know photography 1.30 Process photographs .65 Process photographs .85 130

The abilities to analyze and interpret research for lay readers and

to define scientific jargon were rated next with average weighted scores

of 2.79 and 2.78, respectively. The AWS breakdown by group for analyzing

and interpreting research was: journalism educators, 2.76; scientists,

2.79; newspaper editors, 2.79; and science writers, 2.84. The AWS breakdown by group for defining scientific jargon was: scientists, 2.70;

science writers and journalism educators, 2.79; and newspaper editors,

2.88.

The ability to prepare appropriate questions in advance for scien­

tific interviews was rated next with an AWS of 2.69. The breakdown by group was: scientist, 2.59; science writers, 2.68; newspaper editors,

2.74; and journalism educators, 2.75.

The ability to spot errors in and edit one's own work was next with

and AWS of 2.67. The breakdown is: science writers, 2.63; scientists,

2.64; journalism educators, 2.69; and newspaper editors, 2.72.

The ability to find analogies to help explain complex ideas was rated next with an AWS of 2.61. The breakdown was: scientists, 2.48; journalism educators, 2.61; science writers, 2.68; and newspaper editors,

2.70.

The ability to meet deadlines was next with an AWS of 2.58 overall.

The breakdown was: scientists, 2.23; journalism educators, 2.62; science writers, 2.69; and newspaper editors, 2.79.

The overall AWS of 2.55 puts a wide knowledge of and familiarity with scientific terminology next on our list. The breakdown is: science writers, 2.50; newspaper editors, 2.53; journalism educators, 2.55; and scientists, 2.61. The ability to cover speeches and scientific conventions is next

with an AWS of 2.49 overall. The breakdown was: scientists, 2.23;

newspaper editors, 2.53; science writers, 2.58; and journalism educa­

tors, 2.59.

The ability to solve problems that science reporters may face on-

the-job comes next with an AWS of 2.47. The group breakdown was:

scientists, 2.41; newspaper editors, 2.44; journalism educators, 2.45;

and science writers, 2.55.

The ability to understand legal and ethical problems involved in

writing scientific news stories is next with an AWS of 2.47 also. The

group breakdown was: science writers, 2.39; scientists, 2.41; journal­

ism educators, 2.54; and newspaper editors, 2.58.

The ability to write informative, catchy story leads is next-rated with an AWS of 2.03. The group breakdown is: scientists, 1.63; journal­

ism educators, 2.04; newspaper editors, 2.14; and science writers, 2.29.

The ability to do simple research to learn about scientific ideas

and innovations is next with an AWS of 1.92. The group breakdown was:

scientists, 1.77; science writers, 1.79; journalism educators, 2.03;

and newspaper editors, 2.12.

Again, the three lowest options listed were the (a) ability to take photographs of accompanying materials, with an AWS of 1.31; (b) knowing body language in interview situations, with an AWS of 1.27; and (c) the

ability to process photographs in a darkroom, with an AWS of .79 overall.

These three categories' respective breakdowns were: (a) scientists, 1.14 journalism educators, 1.30; newspaper editors, 1.40; and science writers,

1.44; (b) science writers, 1.10; scientists, 1.21; newspaper editors, 132

1.28; and journalism educators, 1.46; (c) science writers, .65; scien­

tists, .77; journalism educators, .85; and newspaper editors, .93. (See

Tables 22, 23 and 24.)

(v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science Reporters

This section of the second stage survey questionnaire dealt with

the identification of those skills, knowledge and understandings that

might be important to teachers of potential science writers. Again,

average weighted scores were figured as described before for comparison

and analytical purposes. The categories here were great, moderate,

little or no importance.

(A) Assessing average weighted scores for this section, all re­

spondents in general considered that the ability to teach potential

science reporters how to write science news stories logically and clear­

ly was the most important skill such a teacher should possess. That

option received an AWS of 2.81 out of a maximum possible AWS of 3.00,

or approaching "Great" importance. The ability to teach students how to

gather science news followed with an AWS of 2.69. Teaching how to con­

duct successful interviews was next with an AWS of 2.66, followed by

the ability to teach students how to analyze or interpret scientific

developments with an AWS of 2.62.

Next came the ability to teach students how to spot their own

errors and correct their own stories with an AWS of 2.51, about halfway

between "Great" and "Moderate" importance. Immediately following was

the ability to teach students how to write many kinds of science news

stories with an AWS of 2.46. The ability to inspire students' confidence 133

in themselves was rated next with an AWS of 2.35; followed by the

ability to assess students' abilities and begin where they are with an

AWS of 2.33; getting students to meet deadlines, with an AWS of 2.31;

and teaching them how to deal with other persons in getting science news

stories, with an AWS of 2.26.

The teacher should have the ability to do well all of the skills

that (s)he is teaching was rated next with an AWS of 2.25; followed by

the ability to teach media law and professional ethics regarding science

news stories, with an AWS of 2.22; and the ability to teach students how

to write good, interesting news story leads, with an AWS of 2.21. The

ability to identify potential science news reporters and recruit them

for the program came much further down the list with an AWS of 1.93, or

slightly below of "Moderate" importance. Considered of lowest importance by the respondents, according to the average weighted scores, were the

ability to teach students how to write picture captions or outlines, with an AWS of 1.56; the ability to teach students how to take usable pictures of research materials and equipment, with an AWS of 1.29; and

the ability to teach students how to process pictures in a photographic

darkroom, with an AWS of .81 or below of "Little" importance. (See

Tables 25, 26, and 27.)

(B) Average weighted scores for the different groups of respond­

ents regarding teacher competencies required to teach potential science reporters also varied. The group breakdown for the ability to teach how

to write logically and clearly, with an overall AWS of 2.81, was:

scientists, 2.68; journalism educators, 2.79; science writers, 2.85; and newspaper editors, 2.95. 134

The ability to teach how to gather science ne s came next with an

AWS of 2.69. The group breakdown was: scientists, 2.55; journalism

educators, 2.68; science writers, 2.73; and newspaper editors, 2.81.

The ability to teach students how to conduct interviews well was

next with an AWS of 2.66. The breakdown was: scientists, 2.46;

journalism educators, 2.65; science writers, 2.73; and newspaper editors

2.81.

The ability to teach students how to analyze or interpret scien­

tific developments was rated next with an overall AWS of 2.62. The

breakdown by group was: scientists, 2.43; science writers, 2.61; jour­

nalism educators, 2.69; and newspaper editors, 2.74.

The ability to teach students how to spot their own errors and

correct their own stories was rated next with an overall AWS of 2.51.

The group breakdown was: scientists, 2.41; science writers and journal­

ism educators, 2.52; and newspaper editors, 2.63.

The ability to teach students how to write many kinds of science news stories was rated with an AWS of 2.46 overall. The breakdown was:

scientists, 2.18; journalism educators, 2.48; science writers and news­ paper editors, 2.60.

The ability to inspire students’ confidence in themselves was rated next with an overall AWS of 2.35. The breakdown was: scientists, 2.21; journalism educators, 2.37; science writers and newspaper editors, 2.42.

Next rated with an AWS of 2.33 overall was the teacher's ability to assess students' abilities and begin where they are. The group break­ down was: scientists, 2.23; newspaper editors, 2.28; science writers,

2.34; and journalism educators, 2.42. 135

TABLE 25 COMPETENCIES TOR TEACHERS OE POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Ability to: All Writers Educators Researchers Editors Teach how to write news stories logically and clearly 2.81 2.85 2.79 2.68 2.95 Teach how to gather science news 2.69 2.73 2.68 2.55 2.81 Teach how to conduct successful interviews 2.66 2.73 2.65 2.46 2.81 Teach how to analyze or interpret developments 2.62 2.61 2.69 2.43 2.74 Teach how to spot one's errors and correct work 2.51 2.52 2.52 2.41 2.63 Teach how to write many kinds of science stories 2.46 2.60 2.43 2.18 2.60 Inspire students' confi­ dence in themselves 2.35 2.42 2.37 2.21 2.42 Assess students' abili­ ties & begin at their level 2.33 2.34 2.42 2.23 2.28 Get students to meet deadlines 2.31 2.39 2.42 1.89 2.56 Teach how to deal with others 2.26 2.34 2.28 2.04 2.42 Do well all skills one is teaching 2.25 2.21 2.30 2.16 2.35 Teach media law and professional ethics 2.22 2.02 2.30 2.20 2.42 Teach how to write good leads 2.21 2.44 2.23 1.79 2.42 Identify and recruit po­ tential science writers 1.93 1.97 2.01 1.80 1.91 Teach how to write picture cutlines 1.56 1.48 1.39 1.71 1.77 Teach photography 1.29 1.21 1.24 1.36 1.40 Teach use of photo­ graphic darkroom .81 .61 .87 .79 1.00

Note: Average weighted scores were calculated as described on previous tables. 136

TABLE 26 COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHERS OF POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS (Average Weighted Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators Teach how to write' news Teach how to write news logically and clearly 2.85 logically and clearly 2.79 Teach how to gather Teach how to analyze or science news 2.73 interpret developments 2.69 Teach how to conduct Teach how to gather successful interviews 2.73 science news 2.68 Teach how to analyze or Teach how to conduct interpret developments 2.61 successful interviews 2.65 Teach how to write many Teach how to spot one's kinds of science stories 2.60 errors and correct work 2.52 Teach how to spot one's Teach how to write many errors and correct work 2.52 kinds of science stories 2.48 Teach how to write Assess students' abilities good leads 2.44 and begin ac their level 2.42 Inspire students' confi­ Get students to dence in themselves 2.42 meet deadlines 2.42 Get students to Inspire students' confi­ meet deadlines 2.39 dence in themselves 2.37 Assess students' abilities Do well all skills and begin at their level 2.34 one is teaching 2.30 Teach how to deal Teach media law and with others 2.34 professional ethics 2.30 Do well a ll the sk ills Teach how to deal one is teaching 2.21 with others 2.28 Teach media law and Teach how to write professional ethics 2.02 good leads 2.23 Identify and recruit po­ Identify and recruit po­ tential science writers 1.97 tential science writers 2.01 Teach how to write Teach how to write picture outlines 1.48 picture outlines 1.39

Teach camera use 1.21 Teach camera use 1.24 Teach darkroom use .61 Teach darkroom use .87 137

TABLE 27 COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHERS OF POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS (Average Weighted Scores)

Scientists and Researchers Newspaper Editors Teach how to write news Teach how to write news logically and clearly 2.68 logically and clearly 2.95 Teach how to gather Teach how to gather science news 2.55 science news 2.81 Teach how to conduct Teach how to conduct successful Interviews 2.46 successful interviews 2.81 Teach how to analyze or Teach how to analyze or interpret developments 2.43 interpret developments 2.74 Teach how to spot one's Teach how to spot one's errors and correct work 2.41 errors and correct work 2.63 Assess students' abilities Teach how to write many and begin at their level 2.23 kinds of science stories 2.60 Inspire students' confi­ Get students to dence in themselves 2.21 meet deadlines 2.56 Teach media law and Inspire students' confi­ professional ethics 2.20 dence in themselves 2.42 Teach how to write many Teach how to deal with kinds of science stories 2.18 others 2.42 Do well all skills Teach media law and one is teaching 2.16 professional ethics 2.42 Teach how to deal Teach how to write with others 2.04 good leads 2.42 Get students to Do well all skills meet deadlines 1.89 one is teaching 2.35 Identify and recruit po­ Assess students' abilities tential science writers 1.80 and begin at their level 2.28 Teach how to write Identify and recruit po­ good leads 1.79 tential science writers 1.91 Teach how to write Teach how to write picture cutlines 1.71 picture cutlines 1.77 Teach camera use 1.36 Teach camera use 1.40

Teach darkroom use .79 Teach darkroom use 1.00 138

The ability to get students to meet deadlines was next with an AWS of 2.31 overall. The group breakdown was: scientists, 1.89; science writers, 2.39; journalism educators, 2.42; and newspaper editors, 2.56.

Next came the teacher's ability to teach students how to deal with others well, with an AWS of 2.26 overall. The breakdown was: scientists,

2.04; journalism educators, 2.28; science writers, 2.34; and newspaper editors, 2.42.

Then came the teacher's ability to do well all of the skills one is teaching with an overall AWS of 2.25. The breakdown was: scientists,

2.16; science writers, 2.21; journalism educators, 2.30; and newspaper editors, 2.35.

The teaching of media law and professional ethics was next with an overall AWS of 2.22. The breakdown was: science writers, 2.02; scien­ tists, 2.20; journalism educators, 2.30; and newspaper editors, 2.42.

The ability to teach students how to write good leads for stories was next with an overall AWS of 2.21. The breakdown by group was: scientists, 1.79; journalism educators, 2.23; newspaper editors, 2.42; and science writers, 2.44.

Next was the teacher's ability to identify and recruit potential science writing students, with an overall AWS of 1.93. The breakdown was: scientists, 1.80; newspaper editors, 1.91; science writers, 1.97; and journalism educators, 2.01.

Rated lowest according to the average weighted scores overall were the teacher's ability to teach students how to write picture captions with an AWS of 1.56, to take pictures with an AWS of 1.29, and to process pictures in a darkroom with an AWS of .81. The breakdowns for these 139

three groups were: (a) journalism educators, 1.39; science writers,

1.48; scientists, 1.71; and newspaper editors, 1.77; (b) science

writers, 1.21; journalism educators, 1.24; scientists, 1.36; and news­

paper editors, 1.40; (c) science writers, .61; scientists, .79; jour­

nalism educators, .87; and newspaper editors, 1.00. (See Tables 25,

26 and 27.)

(vi) Best Teachers of Science Writers

This section of the second stage survey questionnaire dealt with

identifying who would be the "best" teachers of potential science news

writers or reporters. Respondents were given eight options and asked

to rank them from "1" (First) to "8" (Last). Rankings were totaled and

divided by the number in the group studied to provide an average rank

score (ARS).

(A) In an analysis of average rank scores that respondents gave to

selected persons who might be chosen to teach science news writing

courses or workshops, the following pattern emerged: the respondents

tended to think that currently-working, experienced science news re­

porters would be the BEST persons to teach such courses or workshops.

Of eight possible groups of persons ranked from "1" to "8", that group

received an average rank score (ARS) of 2.14 from the 232 respondents.

(A "perfect" score would be 1.00 if everyone ranked only one group of

persons first or best to teach science writing courses or workshops.

However, some respondents did not rank all of the possible options;

therefore the average rank scores for some of the options may be arti­

ficially low— even below 1.00— as mentioned in the following paragraph. 140

A "no answer" was computed as a 2ero by the computer when analyzing re­

sponses and figured into the totals recorded.) Next ranked was the group,

college journalism instructors with special science reporting and writing

training or experience, with an ARS of 2.21. Then came the group,

science news editors, with an ARS of 2.39, other editors with 3.28,

college journalism instructors with 3.89, and scientists or researchers with 4.47.

Of the two other options listed, "A Combination of _____ and "

(to be filled in by the respondent) received an ARS of 1.18, and "Others

" (also to be specified by the respondent) received an ARS of .41.

Even though the rankings for these two options are lower than the others they were not listed first because relatively few respondents chose to rank them at all: thus, their average rank scores are artificially low.

Only 91 of the 232 respondents bothered to mark "A Combination" and 20 the "Others" choices.

The first three groups listed above are rather closely ranked, and might be considered the "best" choices to teach science writing courses and workshops, according to the respondents. (See Tables 28, 29 and 30.)

(B) A breakdown by groups is not included here (as before) because the group order closely resembles the overall ARS order. There are ex­ ceptions, of course, but in general the respondents tended to favor the group options they may have most identified with. (See especially

Table 29.)

For those respondents who checked the "combination" category as being of importance, the most often-mentioned combination was of science news reporters and journalism instructors with special science news 141

TABLE 23 RANKED BEST TEACHERS OF SCIENCE REPORTERS (Average Rank Scores) Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Suggested Teacher All Writers EducatorsResearchers Editors Experienced Science News Reporters 2.14 1.39 2.63 1.82 2.09 College Journalism Instructors with special science news writing and reporting training or experience 2.21 2.37 1.55 2.61 2.56 Science News Editors 2.39 2.27 2.75 2.41 1.95 Other Editors 3.28 3.26 3.77 2.84 3.05 College Journalism Instructors 3.89 4.02 3.46 3.96 4.33 Scientists or Researchers 4.47 4.23 5.21 4.04 4.14 A Combination of the Above and/or Others 1.18 .69 1.30 1.54 1.21 Others (to be specified) .41 .47 .49 .30 .30

Note: Average rank scores were calculated as follows: The respondents ranked each of the above options from a high of 1 to a low of 8, and any number in be­ tween. Rankings were totaled, and divided by the total respondents in each category to provide.the average rank scores. 142

TABLE 29

RANKED BEST TEACHERS OF SCIENCE REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUP (Average Rank Scores) Science Writers Journalism Educators Experienced Science College Journalism News Reporters 1.89 Instructors with special training or experience 1.55 Science News Editors 2.27 Experienced Science College Journalism News Reporters 2.63 Instructors with special training or experience 2.37 Science News Editors 2.75 Other Editors 3.26 College Journalism Instructors 3.46 College Journalism Instructors 4.02 Other Editors 3.77 Scientists or Researchers 4.23 Scientists or Researchers 5.21 A Combination .69 A Combination 1.30 Others (Specified) .47 Others (Specified) .49

Scientists and Researchers Newspaper Editors Experienced Science Science News Editors 1.95 News Reporters 1.82 Experienced Science News Science News Editors 2.41 Reporters 2.09 College Journalism College Journalism Instructors with special Instructors with special training or experience 2.61 training or experience 2.56 Other Editors 2.84 Other Editors 3.05 College Journalism Scientists or Researchers 4.14 Instructors 3.96 College Journalism Scientists or Researchers 4.04 Instructors 4.33 A Combination 1.54 A Combination 1.21 Others (Specified) .30 Others (Specified) .30 143

TABLE 30 RESPONDENTS WHO SUGGESTED A COMBINATION OF PERSONS BEST TO TEACH SCIENCE NEWS REPORTING Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Combinacion All Writers Educators Researchers Editors Experienced Science News Reporters AND College Journalism Instructors with Special Science Writing Training or Experience 26 11 Experienced Science News Reporters AND Scientists or Researchers 23 11 College Journalism Instruc­ tors with Special Science Writing Training or Experience AND Scientists or Researchers (or Teachers of Science) 18 10 Science News Editors AND College Journalism Instruc­ tors with Special Science Writing Training or Experience 12 Experienced Science News Reporters AND Science News Editors Science News Editors AND Scientists or Researchers 3 "A Combination" 2 ALL 1

No Answer/Don't Know 141 41 41 31 28

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 144

writing training or experience. That category received 26, or 11.2% of

the 232 total respondents. Eleven journalism educators, or 42.3% of the

26, and 9 science writers, or 34.6% of the 26, chose this combination.

The next most chosen combination was of experienced science news

reporters and scientists or researchers, with 23 or 9.9% of the 232

total respondents. Eleven, or 47.8% of the 23, were scientists, with 6,

or 26.1% of the 23, being science writers.

Next rated was the combination of scientists or researchers and

journalism instructors with special science writing training or experi­

ence, with 18 or 7.8% of the 232 total respondents. Journalism educators,

with 10 or 55.6% of the 18, and scientists, with 4 or 22.2% of the 18,

were the primary selectors of this combination.

Twelve respondents, or 5.2% of the 232,total respondents, selected

the combination of newspaper editors and journalism instructors with

special science writing training or experience. Editors made up half

of the selectors, or 6, with journalism educators having 3, or 25%.

Other combinations received a maximum of 2.6% each of the total

232 respondents' "votes." (See Table 30.)

(vii) Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science Reporters

This section of the second stage survey questionnaire dealt with

selecting from various listed options the best way to train potential

science news reporters. Seven options were listed and the respondent

was asked to rank them from a "1" (First) to a "7" (Last). The rankings

were added and divided by the total in the group being studied to pro­

vide an average rank score (ARS) for each option. 145

(A) In an analysis of the average rank scores figured from ranks

the respondents gave to selected "courses of action for supplying the

media with science news reporters," the following pattern emerged: top-

ranked, with the lowest score on a "1" to "7" ranking scale was the op­

tion, "Take college science reporting courses as part of a journalism

degree program, then serve an apprenticeship or internship with an ex­

perienced science reporter before working full-time for the media as a

science reporter." That option received an average rank score (ARS) of

1.60. (As in the previous section, a "perfect" score would be 1.00 if

all of the respondents chose that option. Again, however, few respond­

ents completed the final choice ("Others"): therefore, the numbers re­

corded for that category or option are misleading, and the category dropped for all practical purposes.)

Second-ranked with a 2.31 ARS was the option, "Take college science reporting courses as part of a journalism degree program, then work for the media after graduation." Third-ranked with a 2.81 ARS was, "Get a general journalism degree at a college, then complete science reporting workshops before beginning work as a science reporter." Fourth-ranked with a 3.98 ARS was, "Be tutored by a currently-working science news reporter while working for the media. Take NO journalism courses."

Fifth-ranked with a 4.09 ARS was, "Get a general journalism degree at a college, then begin work as a science reporter without specialized train­ ing." Sixth-ranked with a 4.14 ARS was, "Work with scientists and/or medical researchers, then work for the media as a science reporter.

Take NO journalism courses." 146

A final option listed, "Others (Please Specify) received an

ARS of .45. This is misleading in terms of ranking, however, as few re­

spondents bothered to mark an "other": only 55 of the 232 respondents

completed this option. (See Tables 31, 32 and 33.)

(B) Again, a complete breakdown by groups is not included because

group average rank scores patterns closely follow the overall average

rank score patterns. (See Tables 31 and 32.)

Other courses of action for supplying the media with science news

writers suggested in the open-ended "Other" option included: getting

a dual science and writing major in college, with 19 or 8.2% of the 232

respondents; getting a good scientific background or degree, with 10 or

4.3% of the 232 total respondents; and getting a science degree then

taking a science news writing apprenticeship, with 7 or 3% of the 232

respondents. The primary proponents of the first course of action were

science writers, with 8 or 42.1% of 19; followed by journalism educators,

with 5 or 26.3%; scientists, with 4 or 21.1%; and newspaper editors,

with 2 or 10.5%. The second course of action was recommended by 4, or

40% of the 10, scientists; 2, or 20%, journalism educators; and 1, or

10%, newspaper editor. The third course of action was primarily rec­

ommended by 6, or 85.7% of the 7, science writers, and 1, or 14.3%,

scientist. (See Table 33.)

(viii) College Level for Science News Writing and Reporting Instruction

The majority of the respondents to the second stage survey, 215 out

of 232, recommended that college instruction in science writing be given primarily in regular courses. Of the 215 who answered thusly, 143 or 147

TABLE 31 RANKED BEST COURSES OF ACTION FOR SUPPLYING THE MEDIA WITH SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS (Average Rank Scores) ScienceJournalism Scientists/ Newspaper Course of Action All Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Take College Science Reporting Courses as Part of Journalism Degree Program, then Serve Ap­ prenticeship or Internship 1.60 1.81 1.58 1.36 1.67 Take College Science Reporting Courses as Part of Journalism Degree Program 2.31 2.45 2.17 '2.27 2.37 Get a General Journalism Degree, then Complete Science Reporting Workshops 2.81 2.87 2.92 2.45 3.00 Be Tutored by a Science News Reporter On-the-Job; Take no Journalism Courses 3.98 3.40 4.44 3.86 4.21 Get a General Journalism Degree; then Work as a Science Reporter without Specialized Training 4.09 4.08 4.21 3.80 4.28 Work with Scientists, then Work for Media as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journal­ ism Courses 4.14 3.82 4.70 3.55 4.44 (Others) .45 .63 .63 .32 .07

Note: Average rank scores were calculated as follows: The respondents ranked each of the above options from a high or 1 to a low of 8, and any number in be­ tween. Rankings were totaled, and divided by the total respondents in each category to provide the average rank scores. 148

TABLE 32 RANKED BEST COURSES OF ACTION FOR SUPPLYING THE MEDIA WITH SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS BY RESPONDENT GROUPS (Average Rank Scores)

Science Writers Journalism Educators Take Science Reporting Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 1.81 or Apprenticeship 1.58 Take Science Reporting Take Science Reporting Courses as Parc of Courses as Part of Journalism Degree 2.45 Journalism Degree 2.17 Journalism Degree; then Journalism Degree; then Science Reporting Workshops 2.37 Science Reporting Workshops 2.92 Science News Reporter Tucoring Journalism Degree; Work as a On-the-Job; No Journalism Science Reporter without Courses 3.40 Specialized Training 4.21 Scientific Work; then Work as Science News Reporter a Science Reporter; Take NO Tutoring On-the-Job; Journalism Courses 3.32 No Journalism Courses 4.44 Journalism Degree; Work as Scientific Work; then Work as Science Reporter without a Science Reporter; Take NO Specialized Training 4.08 Journalism Courses 4.70 (Others) .63 (Others) .63

Scientists and Researchers Newspaper Editors Take Science Reporting Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship 1.36 Degree; Serve Internship 1.67 Take Science Reporting Take Science Reporting Courses as Part of a Courses as Part of a Journalism Degree Program 2.27 Journalism Degree Program 2.37 Journalism Degree; then Journalism Degree; then Science Reporting Workshops 2.45 Science Reporting Workshops 3.00 Scientific Work; then Work as Science News Reporter a Science Reporter; Take NO Tutoring On-the-Job; Journalism Courses 3.55 No Journalism Courses 4.21 Journalism Degree; Work as a Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter without Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 3.80 Specialized Training 4.23 Science News Reporter Scientific Work; then Work as Tutoring On-the-Job; a Science Reporter; Take NO No Journalism Courses 3.36 Journalism Courses 4.44 (Others) .32 (Others) .07 149

TABLE 33 SUGGESTED OTHER COURSES OF ACTION FOR SUPPLYING THE MEDIA WITH SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS

Course of Action AU S c i e n c e Journalism S cientists/ Newspaper course or Action______A l l Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Get a Dual Major or one with heavy science and English/ Journalism Writing Courses 19 Get a Scientific Background or Science Degree 10 Get a Science Degree; then Serve Apprenticeship with a Science Reporter 7 Get a Journalism Degree; Work as a General Assignment Reporter; then Cover Science News 5 3 2 Get a Dual Science and Writing Major; Serve an Apprentice­ ship or Internship; then Work 4 1 3 Get a B.S. in Science and a M.S. in Journalism; or Vice Versa 3 2 1 Get a Journalism Degree with Liberal Arts, Science and/or Science Reporting Courses; then Internship 3 2 1 Get a Journalism Degree; Work in a Laboratory; then Work as a Science Reporter or Complete an Internship 2 1 1 Work with Scientists/Researchers; Take Journalism Courses; then Serve Apprenticeship 1 1

No Answer 178 40 55 43 40

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 150

61.6% recommended both undergraduate and graduate-level courses, 39 or

16.8% recommended only undergraduate courses, and 33 or 14.2% recommended just graduate courses. Continuing education, workshops, and other types of instruction were rated much lower. (See Table 34.)

(ix) Recommended Science Writing Workshops Length

Generally speaking, the second stage survey respondents tended to favor workshop time lengths of a week or longer if science writing work­ shops were taught in colleges. The most checked workshop length was two weeks, with 55 or 23.7% of the 232 respondents. Next was 5 days or one week, with 44 or 19% of the respondents, followed by one month or four weeks with 42 or 18.1%. Science writers generally preferred the longer lengths, with 12 checking 2 weeks and 15 one month, as did the journal­ ism educators, with 18 and 12, respectively. Scientists preferred shorter workshop lengths, with 15 checking 5 days and 16 checking 2 weeks, as did the newspaper editors, with 11 and 9, respectively.

(See Table 35.)

(x) Recommended Time Length for Science Writing Internship or Apprenticeship

Respondents to the second stage survey generally thought that in­ ternships or apprenticeships for potential science news reporters should be relatively long— up to a year or more. The most checked or median length was 6 months, with 67 or 28.9% of the 232 respondents, followed by 3 months with 62 or 26.7%, and one year with 57 or 24.6%. Also, 134 out of the 232 respondents checked 6 months or less. 151

TABLE 34

SUGGESTED LEVEL FOR SCIENCE NEWS REPORTING INSTRUCTION

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Recommended Level All Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Undergraduate and Graduate Level Courses 143 36 50 34 23

Undergraduate Level 39 11 8 11 9

Graduage Level 33 6 11 7 9

Short Workshops 4 1 2 1

Continuing Educa­ tion or Non-Credit Courses 3 2

Others 3 2

No Answer 4 2

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 152

TABLE 35

RECOMMENDED SCIENCE WRITING WORKSHOP LENGTH

Recommended Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper All Length Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Two Weeks 55 12 18 16

Five Days (One Week) 44 15 11

One Month (Four Weeks) 42 15 12

Other Lengths (Respondents Specified Times or Lengths) 26 10 11 2 3

Two Days 15 1 5 3 6

Eight Hours (One Day) 3 1

Three Hours 1 1

No Answer 46 14 14 11

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 Science writers favored the longer time of one year with 21 or

33.9% of their 62 "votes," and 15 or 24.2% checking 3 months, while 12 or 19.4% checked 6 months. Of the 56 scientists, 27 or 48.2% checked

6 months or less, with 20 or 35.7% checking 1 year. Journalism educators mostly chose the relatively shorter times with 22 or 31% of the 71 check­ ing 3 months, and 24 or 33.8% checking 6 months. The newspaper editors also tended to choose the shorter times with 20 or 46.5% of the 43 for

3 months, 10 or 23.3% for 6 months, and 8 or 18.6% for 1 year. (See

Table 36.)

(xi) Ranked Importance of Teaching Science News Reporting

Most respondents thought that the teaching of science news writing at a college or university journalism school or department was very im­ portant, with 99 or 42.7% of the 232 total respondents, or of medium importance, with 110 or 47.4% of the 232. Science writers thought it was most important of all the groups queried, with 38 or 61.3% of the 62 rating it very important, and 19 or 30.6% rating it of medium importance.

The scientists were about evenly split between very important, with 27 or

48.2% of 56, and of medium importance, with 26 or 46.4%. Journalism educators were more middle-of-the-road, with 23 or 32.4% of the 71 re­ spondents rating it very important, and 37 or 52.1% rating it of medium importance. The newspaper editors had 11 or 25.6% of 43 rating it very important, and 28 or 65.1% rating it of medium importance. (See Table 154

TABLE 36

RECOMMENDED SCIENCE WRITING INTERNSHIP OR APPRENTICESHIP LENGTH

Recommended Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Length______Writers_____ Educators Researchers_____ Editors

Six Months (1/2 Year) 67 12 24 21 10

Three Months (1/4 Year) 62 15 22 5 20

One Year 57 21 8 20 8

Other Lengths 18 6 10 1 1

One Month 4 3 1

One Week 1 1

No Answer 23 7 4 8 4

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 155

TABLE 37

RANKED IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING SCIENCE NEWS REPORTING

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rating All Writers Educators Researchers Editors

Medium Importance 110 19 37 26 28

Very Important 99 38 23 27 11

Not Important 20 3 10 3 4

No Answer

Totals 232 62 71 56 43 156

Second Stage Summary

Essentially, the second stage of this study was comprised of a mail

survey of 400 persons: 100 science writers, 100 journalism educators,

100 scientists or researchers, and 100 newspaper editors. A total of

232 respondents mailed back completed questionnaires by the Nov. 23, 1978,

deadline.

Information was sought concerning how best to train or educate

science news reporters or writers, who should teach them, and other in­

formation concerning such preparation. The respondents indicated their

choices, usually by checking a blank, the responses were compiled in

table form, and the results indicated.

Some general observations thus far include: the respondents favored a broad liberal arts education for potential science reporters with physical science and writing courses emphasized. Work as a general assignment reporter would be a helpful experience as would be work in a

laboratory. On-the-job training as a science reporter was favored, plus other forms of contact with science reporters and their working condi­ tions. Competencies for potential science reporters, and that science reporting teachers should emphasize, center on getting students to write well and clearly. Science news reporters and editors and specially- trained or experienced journalism teachers were favored as science writ­ ing instructors. Formal training of science writing students in college courses was also favored. 157

Computer Statistical Analyses of Responses to the Second Stage Survey

These analyses were determined using a Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) furnished by the Research and Evaluation Consult­ ing Service of the Ohio State University College of Education and Ohio

State's IBM 360 computer.

Homogeneity of Groups by Occupation

A computer analysis of variance was used with answers to interval- level questions in five sections of the second stage survey questionnaire.

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 2-Tail Test was used to analyze whether the four respondent groups' answers to a question in one section of the questionnaire were correlated with the same respond­ ents' answers to another question in that section. The five sections so analyzed were: (i) background education; (ii) background experiences;

(iii) supervised or other experiences; (iv) competencies useful to poten­ tial science writers or reporters; and (v) competencies important to teachers of potential science reporters.

When one limits the correlation coefficient to (plus) +.25 or greater, or "significance" to the .054 level among responses within groups for the 58 questions or options in sections (i) through (v) answered by "Great, Moderate, Little, or No Importance or Usefulness," an estimate of the homogeneity of the four groups queried can be made.

Since the questions or options listed varied considerably in content and/or information sought, total correlation among responses to them is not possible, however. (Excluded from this and the following computer analyses were the "Other" and "A Combination" categories listed as 158

answers on the questionnaire, because of an overall paucity of responses in those categories.)

Even so, with a total maximum of 539 possible agreements or correla­ tions for the four respondent groups for the five sections at or greater than +.25, the journalism educator group had 312 such correlations. The scientists and researchers group had 201, and the science writer group,

153. The newspaper editors group had 134 such agreements. (See Table

38.)

From this we might say that the journalism educators were the most cohesive group queried here as measured by correlations coefficients regarding answers to the groups of two questions or options with the five sections listed, with 312 such "significant" correlations or agree­ ments. This may be so because people in this group share a relatively common educational background and have similar interests and goals.

(They may also tend to have more professional interest in this kind of survey than some of the other groups, and might have answered questions more thoughtfully.)

One might predict that newspaper editors' responses or answers would vary considerably because of the diversity of emphases, content and quality among newspapers, and the diversity of backgrounds of the editors themselves. This is the case here, as the editors' answers were the least alike of the four groups, with 134 "significant" corre­ lations .

The science writers' responses also had a relatively low level of

"significant" correlations, with 153 such agreements. Perhaps the science writers are also a very diverse group with varying backgrounds, TABLE 38 HOMOCENEITY OF RESPONDENT GROUPS (Correlation Coefficients of + .25 or Greater) Maximum Section Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL per Group Writers Educators Researchers Editors (1) Background Education 45 12 26. 7% 23 51.1% 11 24.4% 5 11.1% 51 28.3% (ii) Background Experiences 6 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 0 7 29.2% ( iii) Supervised or Other Experiences 36 10 27.8% 14 38.9% 14 38.9% 9 25.0% 47 32.6% (iv) Competencies Useful to the Potential Science Writer 240 61 25.4% 104 43.3% 98 40.8% 67 27.9% 330 34.4% (v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Sci­ ence Writers 212 66 31.1% 169 79.7% 77 36.3% 53 25.0% 365 43.0%

TOTALS* 539 153 28.4% 312 57.9% 201 37.3% 134 24.9% 800 37.1%

NOTE: There were a maximum total of 539 agreements for the five sections listed for each of the four groups, or a maximum combined total of 2,156 for the four groups

* Refers to the totals of the groups for sections. It was not calculated separately by the computer. 160 and with divergent ideas about how best to train their potential co­ workers .

The scientists and medical researchers' group was roughly in the middle of the two extremes of groups, but more towards the lower groups with 201 agreements. Perhaps within their fields of specialization they form a more cohesive group, but here there were many fields represented among the randomly-chosen respondents, with a varying result.

(Included here also is a table, 39, showing correlation coefficients of (plus) +.001 or greater, for comparison purposes.)

General Reliability of Survey Questions and Options

Because of the differing kinds and types of information sought in the second stage survey questionnaire, the questions or options listed varied considerably. Thus, when a Cronbach general reliability analysis was completed of survey responses, the reliability coefficients for the five sections listed in the previous section analyzed overall for each of the four respondent groups also differed quite a bit.

The reliability coefficients used here help show the internal con­ sistency of the questionnaire used as measured by group responses to the various questions in the sections. Reliability coefficients for the five sections overall for the four respondent groups (science writers, jour­ nalism educators, scientists and medical researchers, and newspaper editors) ranged from .307 to .899. (A reliability coefficient of .899 indicates that 89.9% of the variation in measurements may be attributed to variation in true score and .101 or 10.1% to possible error.) TABLE 39

HOMOGENEITY OF RESPONDENT GROUPS (Correlation Coefficienta of + .001 or Greater)

Section Maximum Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper ALL* ______per Group______Writers______Educators____ Researchers____ Editors______(i) Background 45 34 75.6% 42 93.3% 34 75.6% 31 68.9% 141 78.3% Education ( ii) Background Experiences 6 6 100.0% 5 83.3% 3 50.0% 6 100.0% 20 83.3% ( ill) Supervised or Other Experiences 36 31 86.1% 33 91.7% 29 80.6% 30 83.3% 123 85.4% (iv) Competencies Useful to the Potential Sci­ ence Writer 240 210 87.5% 229 95.4% 219 91.3% 195 81.3% 853 88.9% (v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Sci­ ence Writers 212 190 89.6% 211 99.5% 196 92.5% 180 84.9% 777 91.6%

TOTALS* 539 471 87.4% 520 96.5% 481 89.2% 442 82.0% 1914 88.8%

NOTE: There were a maximum total of 539 agreements for the five sections listed for each of the four groups, or a maximum combined total of 2,156 for the four groups.

* Refers to the totals of the groups for sections. It was not calculated separately by the computer. 162

Generally, the reliability coefficients here tended to increase as

there were more items or options in a questionnaire section, and decrease

as that number declined. Generally, reliability coefficients tended to

decrease as the number of respondents or cases in a particular respondent

group increased, and increase as the number of cases declined. Cases were determined for analytical purposes by the number of respondents

giving an answer for all options or questions in a section of the ques­

tionnaire. (See Table 40.)

Differences between Occupational Groups for Second Stage Questionnaire Sections

In a computer Scheffe one-way analysis of variance between occupa­

tional or respondent groups for the first five sections of the second stage questionnaire, some interesting similarities and differences were found. "Significance" at the .02 level was determined to exist between the four occupational groups for the questionnaire section on background education in the form of suggested college courses for potential science reporters or writers. "Significance" at the .01 level was determined to exist between the four occupational groups for the section on useful competencies for potential science reporters or writers, which include such things as reporting and writing skills.

Other figures above the acceptable levels of significance were de­ termined to exist between the groups as: .06 for the section on back­ ground experiences such as work as a reporter or researcher; .23 for the section on supervised or other experiences; and .11 for the section on competencies important to teachers of potential science reporters. 163

TABLE 40 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE SECTIONS (i) Co (v): INDICATED ARE THE NUMBER OF ITEMS IN EACH SECTION, RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS, AND CASES USED IN ANALYSIS.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Writers Educators Researchers Editors Coef. Cases Coef. Cases Coef. Cases Coef. Cases (62) (71) (56) (43) Maximum Section Section Items (i) Background Education 10 .597 (58) .754 (67) .632 (51) .486 (38) (ii) Background Experiences .533 (59) .452 (69) .329 (55) .307 (41) ( iii) Supervised or Work Ex­ periences .701 (58) ,717 (67) .702 (54) .673 (39) (iv) Competencies Useful to Potential Science Writers 13 . 764 (54) .848 (60) .857 (50) .783 (40) (v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science Writers 17 . 797 (53) .899 (62) .848 (47) .785 (38)

NOTE: The numbers of cases indicated refer to the number of respondents who for each section answered all options or questions in that section of the questionnaire. The maximum respondents possible is indicated immediately under the respondent category headings. 164

From this Scheffe analysis we can say that the four respondent

groups queried (science writers, journalism educators, scientists and

medical researchers, and newspaper editors) generally disagreed on the

background education in college that a potential science reporter should

have, and generally disagreed on what professional competencies science

reporters should possess. They agreed more by groups as to what work

experiences should precede actual science reporting work, as well as

other background experiences required for the writers/reporters, and

the competencies required for science writing or reporting teachers.

A Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance computed for responses

ranked from "1" to "7" or "8” in the second stage questionnaire sections

6 and 7 leads to similar statements. Section 6 of the questionnaire

dealt with who would be the "best" teachers of science writers or re­ porters, and section 7 dealt with the "best" courses of action for sup­ plying the media with science reporters.

Figures derived here using this analytical method were .29 for section 6 and .37 for section 7, both of which were above acceptable

levels of significance. Thus, for these two sections, we can say that

the four respondent groups also generally agreed on who should teach science news reporting and writing, and which course of action was best

for supplying the media with science reporters and writers.

Analysis of Time of Return of the Second Stage Questionnaires

Little of "significance" was found in an analysis of the differ­ ences in the times of return of the second stage questionnaires. When a Scheffe one-way analysis of variance was completed for the 232 165

respondents' answers and the seven possible return times, the differing

values obtained ranged from .05 to .90 for the first five sections of

the questionnaire. That is, values for the sections were: (i) back­

ground education, .90; (ii) background (work) experiences, .05;

(iii) supervised or other experiences, .65; (iv) competencies useful to

potential science writers, .74; and (v) competencies important to

teachers of potential science writers, .73.

Only one section has a "significant" level of .05 or less: section

(ii), background (work) experiences. For the purposes here, that indi­

cates that the respondents queried generally disagreed about work ex­ periences, when the respondents were categorized by the times that the questionnaires were returned. But the respondents generally agreed on

the importance or usefulness of the options listed in the other ques­

tionnaire sections when the responses were analyzed by times of return.

(Section (ii) of the questionnaire as analyzed here had only four re­ sponses or possible options, and the other sections had a total of 54

together.)

Conclusions from the Computer Analyses

Generally speaking, the journalism educators were the most cohesive group and answered the second stage survey questions most reliably of the four groups, followed by the other groups primarily in the order: scientists and medical researchers, science writers, and newspaper edi­ tors. The four respondent groups generally agreed on most of the options listed in the seven sections of the questionnaire analyzed, but dis­ agreed on options in two of them. They agreed about what work 166

experiences should precede actual science reporting work, other back­

ground experiences required or suggested for science reporters or writers,

the competencies required for science writing or reporting teachers,

who should teach science news reporting and writing, and which course of

action was best for supplying the media with science reporters and writers. But the four respondent groups disagreed on what background

education in college that a potential science reporter should have, and what professional competencies science writers or reporters should

possess. Generally, the respondents also agreed on options listed when

their responses were analyzed by time of return of the second stage

survey questionnaires.

Second Stage Inferences, Interpretations and Conclusions

Respondents queried in the Second Stage of the study had definite ideas about how best to train science news writers and reporters. In

this section the researcher will interpret the data described in the previous sections, and draw inferences and conclusions. Discussed here will be information from the questionnaire sections dealing with:

(i) background education; (ii) background (work) experiences; (iii) su­ pervised or other experiences; (iv) competencies useful to potential science reporters; (v) competencies important to teachers of potential science news reporters; (vi) best teachers of science news writing courses or workshops; (vii) best courses of action for supplying the media with science news reporters; and other questions. 167

(i) Background Education

Generally speaking, most of the 232 respondents thought the poten­

tial science news writer or reporter should have a college background

before beginning work in the science writing field. Previous studies

cited in the review of literature indicated that science writer re­

spondents, when asked what courses potential science writers should com­

plete, frequently suggested those courses they themselves completed. Al­

though in this second stage questionnaire we did not seek information

about what courses the respondents completed, the data seem to indicate

similar trends for the various respondent groups. Thus, the journalism

educator group gives higher priority to journalism and social sciences

courses than did the other groups, the scientists and researchers tended

to favor English and mathematics courses over journalism and social sciences courses, respectively, etc. All groups queried, however, gave first priority to physical science courses, writing courses, and a broad liberal arts education. (See Tables 14, 15 and 16.)

When one establishes a cut-off point at a "low moderate" rating for average weighted scores (AWS) of 1.50 or better out of a maximum AWS of

3.00, the following courses of study emerge with the highest ratings: physical sciences courses, with an AWS of 2.61; liberal arts courses, with an AWS of 2.50; English writing courses, with an AWS of 2.35; jour­ nalism writing courses, with an AWS of 2.31; social sciences courses, with an AWS of 1.92; and mathematics courses, with an AWS of 1.88. This indicates that the second stage respondents considered those six types of courses or areas of study as the most important general background education for potential science writers or reporters. They deemed as of 168 less importance the other options listed: computer programming courses, with an AWS of 1.28; foreign language courses, with an AWS of 1.27; photography courses, with an AWS of 1.13; art and drawing courses, with an AWS of .72; and other (respondent specified) courses, with an AWS of

.70. Indeed, the AWS for all respondents drops .60 after the first six choices, almost the .73 range of those six. (See Table 41 for ranking of the top six choices by respondent groups.)

Thus, we can conclude that potential science writers should complete physical science courses and English or journalism writing courses, and also a broad range of liberal arts and social sciences courses plus mathematics courses to help prepare themselves for work as a science news reporter.

(ii) Background (Work) Experiences

The second stage survey respondents also generally agreed on what supervised or work experiences would be good background training for potential science writers. Here again, a "low moderate" 1.50 average weighted score (AWS) cut-off point was established.

The "best" experiences include work as a newspaper reporter, which received an AWS of 2.47 for all 232 respondents out of the 3.00 maximum possible. Much further down the range of possible scores were work as a laboratory researcher, with an AWS of 1.91; and work as a college news­ paper reporter, with an AWS of 1.74. Slightly below the 1.50 AWS cut-off point was work as a broadcast reporter, with an AWS of 1.48. (See Tables

17, 18 and 19.) 169

TABLE 41

BACKGROUND EDUCATION COURSES RANKED BY RESPONDENT GROUPS: SHOWN ARE TOP CHOICES ABOVE 1.50 AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE CUT-OFF POINT.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rank ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors

First Physical Liberal Physical Physical Physical Sciences Arts Sciences Sciences Sciences (2.61) (2.58) (2.69) (2.71) (2.53)

Second Liberal Physical Liberal English English Arts Sciences Arts Writing Writing (2.50) (2.47) (2.68) (2.61) (2.53)

Third English English Journalism Liberal Liberal Writing Writing Writing Arts Arts (2.35) (2.31) (2.65) (2.30) (2.37)

Fourth Journalism Journalism Social Journalism Journalism Writing Writing Sciences Writing Writing (2.31) (2.03) (2.13) (2.20) (2.28)

Fifth Social Social English Mathematics Social Sciences Sciences Writing (2.05) Sciences (1.92) (1.94) (2.08) (1.95)

Sixth Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Social Mathematics (1.88) (1.55) (2.01) Sciences (1.91) (1.63)

Seventh Computer Programming (1.61)

NOTE: See also Tables 14, 15 and 16, from which these data are taken. 170

From this we can conclude that the best work experience a potential

science writer might obtain before beginning work as a science news re­

porter is work as a general assignment newspaper reporter. Work as a

laboratory researcher and college newspaper reporter would also be help­

ful, but to a lesser degree. Work as a broadcast news reporter would

be of most benefit to those planning to work as a broadcast science news

reporter after completing a science writing program. (See Table 42 for

a group ranking of background experiences by Average Weighted Scores.)

(iii) Supervised or Other Experiences

The second stage survey respondents helped identify supervised or

other informal experiences that might be of value to potential science

writers. An average weighted score (AWS) for "low moderate" or 1.50 was again established, out of the 3.00 maximum possible, as a cut-off

point. Here, distincitions were quite clear-cut as seven options were

rated with an AWS of 2.27 or above, and two with .93 or below. The two

lower-rated categories, "playing chess and other games involving ab­

stract thinking," and "reading science fiction," were dropped.

The seven top-rated options and overall respondent average weighted

scores (AWS) were: (1) on-the-job training as a science writer, 2.66;

(2) attending scientific and medical workshops and conventions, 2.47;

(3) attending scientific and medical lectures, 2.38; (4) internships as

science reporters while getting college course credit, 2.37; (5) attend­

ing seminars in science writing, 2.37; (6) accompanying working science

reporters on-the-job for several days, 2.33; and (7) informal talks with

science reporters, 2.27. (See Tables 20 and 21.) 171

TABLE 42

BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES RANKED BY RESPONDENT GROUPS: SHOWN ARE TOP CHOICES ABOVE 1.50 AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE CUT-OFF POINT.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rank ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors

First Newspaper Newspaper Newspaper Newspaper Newspaper Reporter Reporter Reporter Reporter Reporter (2.47) (2.53) (2.52) (2.14) (2.70)

Second Laboratory College Laboratory Laboratory College Researcher Newspaper Researcher Researcher Reporter (1.91) Reporter (1.96) (2.14) (1.74) (1.82)

Third College Broadcast College College Laboratory Newspaper Reporter Newspaper Newspaper Researcher Reporter (1.81) Reporter Reporter (1.70) (1.74) (1 .86) (1.50)

Fourth Laboratory Researcher (1.77)

NOTE: See also Tables 17, 18 and 19, from which these data are taken. From this we can conclude that there are various options or experi­ ences that one might choose to complete that would be helpful to a career in science news reporting. These options would help provide in­ sights into the work of scientists and the science writers who write stories about them. For example, much new scientific and medical in- fromation is presented and discussed in scientific and medical workshops and conventions, as mentioned in (2) above. On-the-job training was top-rated, and would be an excellent way for an aspiring science writer to learn from an experienced science news reporter. However there are not always enough experienced science news reporters with time available to tutor newcomers, especially since the profession itself is rather new and small. Internships are also potentially good training programs, but again they are limited in many cases, and not everyone can partici­ pate in internship or apprenticeship programs. That leaves attending science writing seminars as perhaps the better option in this section for a majority of aspiring science news writers to learn their craft. The other options listed would help provide more of an indirect training system, with the potential science writer picking up knowledge and understandings as he witnessed happenings and asked questions. (See

Table 43 for a group ranking of options in this section.)

(iv) Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters

The second stage survey respondents also identified competencies they thought would be useful to potential science reporters. Again a

"low moderate" cut-off point was established for average weighted scores (AWS) of 1.50, or one-half of the 3.00 AWS maximum possible. 173

TABLE 43 SUPERVISED OR OTHER EXPERIENCES RANKED BY RESPONDENT GROUPS: SHOWN ARE TOP CHOICES ABOVE 1.50 AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE CUT-OFF POINT.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rank AIL Writers Educators Researchers Editors Firsc On-che-Job On-che-Job On-the-Job On-the-Job On-che-Job Training Training Training Training Training (2.66) (2.76) (2.69) (2.52) (2.63)

Second Attending Attending Attending Attending Accompany Workshops & Workshops & Workshops 6 Workshops & S. Writers Conventions Conventions Conventions Conventions On-che-Job (2.47) (2.52) (2.58) (2.52) (2.47)

Third Attending Attending Internships Attending Internships Scientific Scientific as Science Scientific as Science Lectures Lectures Reporters Lectures Reporters (2.38) (2.44) (2.58) (2.38) (2.42)

Fourth Internships Internships Attending Accompany Attending as Science as Science S. Writing S. Writers S. Writing Reporters Reporters Seminars On-the-Job Seminars (2.37) (2.34) (2.48) (2.36) (2.42)

Fifth Attending Accompany Attending Attending Attending Science S. Writers Scientific S. Writing Scientific Writing On-the-Job Lectures Seminars Lectures Seminars (2.32) (2.41) (2.32) (2.23) (2.37) Sixth Accompany Attending Informal Informal Informal S. Writers S. Writing Talks with Talks with Talks with On-the-Job Seminars S. Writers S. Writers S. Writers (2.33) (2.26) (2.37) (2.27) (2.21)

Seventh Informal Informal Accompany Internships Attending Talks with Talks with S. Writers as Science Workshops & S. Writers S. Writers On-che-Job Reporters Conventions (2.27) (2.21) (2.24) (2.09) (2.19)

NOTE: See also Tables 20 and 21, from which these data are taken. 174

For this section, as in the previous one, there was a very clean divi­ sion between those competencies most-favored and those least favored:

15 options had an AWS within 1.02 from 1.92 to 2.94, while the remaining options had an AWS from .79 to 1.31. There was a large jump of .61 be­ tween the higher-rated competencies and the lower three ("able to photo­ graph accompanying materials," "able to process photographs in a dark­ room," and "know body language in interview situations") which were dropped. (See Tables 23, 24 and 44.)

The 15 top-rated options and their overall respondent AWSs were:

(I) able to express complex ideas in simple terms, 2.94; (2) able to write well-organized, logical news stories, 2.84; (3) able to conduct interviews well, 2.83; (4) able to analyze and interpret research for lay readers, 2.79; (5) able to define scientific jargon, 2.78; (6) able to prepare questions in advance for interviews, 2.69; (7) able to spot errors in and edit own work, 2.67; (8) able to find analogies to help explain complex ideas, 2.61; (9) able to meet deadlines, 2.58; (10) have a wide knowledge of and familiarity with scientific terminology, 2.55;

(II) able to cover speeches and scientific conventions, 2.49; (12) able to solve problems that science reporters may face on the job, 2.47;

(13) understand legal and ethical problems involved in writing scientific news stories, 2.47; (14) able to write informative, catchy story leads,

2.03; and (15) able to do simple research to learn about scientific ideas and innovations, 1.92.

From these data, we can conclude that the respondents tended to favor the ability to write well and explain scientific ideas well for readers as competencies for potential science news reporters. Then came 175

TABLE 44 COMPETENCIES USEFUL TO POTENTIAL SCIENCE REPORTERS: SHOWN ARE RANKED TOP CHOICES ABOVE 1.50 AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE WITH AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORES (IN PARENTHESES) BY GROUPS.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Description ALL Writers EducatorsResearchers Editors Express complex ideas in simple terms 1(2.94) 1(2.98) 2(2.92) 1(2.91) 1(2.98) Write well-organized, logical news stories 2(2.84) 2(2.92) 5(2.75) 2(2.79) 2(2.93) Conduct interviews well 3(2.83) 4(2.82) 1(2.93) 4(2.71) 4(2.84) Analyze and interpret research for readers 4(2.79) 3(2.84) 4(2.76) 3(2.79) 5(2.79) Define scien tific jargon 5(2.78) 5(2.79) 3(2.79) 5(2.70) 3(2.88) Prepare questions in advance for interviews 6(2.69) 7(2.68) 6(2.75) 8(2.59) 7(2.74) Spot errors in and edit own work 7(2.67) 9(2.63) 7(2.69) 6(2.64) 8(2.72) Find analogies to help explain complex ideas 8(2.61) 8(2.68) 9(2.61) 9(2.48) 9(2.70) Meed deadlines 9(2.58) 6(2.69) 8(2.62) 12(2.23) 6(2.79) Knowledge and fam iliari­ ty with science terms 10(2.55) 12(2.50) 11(2.55) 7(2.61) 11(2.53) Cover speeches and sci­ en tific conventions 11(2.49) 10(2.58) 10(2.59) 13(2.23) 12(2.53) Solve science re­ porting problems 12(2.47) 11(2.55) 13(2.45) 10(2.41) 13(2.44) Understand legal and ethical problems 13(2.47) 13(2.39) 12(2.54) 11(2.41) 10(2.58) Write informative leads 14(2.03) 14(2.29) 14(2.04) 15(1.63) 14(2.14) Do simple research to learn scientific ideas 15(1.92) 15(1.79) 15(2.03) 14(1.77) 15(2.12)

NOTE: See also Tables 22, 23 and 24, from which these data are taken. 176

options dealing with conducting good interviews with news sources,

advance preparation for science news stories, and satisfying the tech­ nical "niceties" and legal aspects of the job.

This allows us also to suggest that the majority of courses of study for potential science news reporters be used to ensure that the science writing students learn to write well in a simple, easy-to- understand manner. Other skills and competencies, although important, have to take a lesser place.

(v) Competencies Important to Teachers of Potential Science News Reporters

The overall average weighted scores for all 232 second stage re­ spondents for the competencies they considered important for teachers of potential science news reporters also tended toward one or another extreme. Again using an average weighted score (AWS) "low-moderate" cut-off point of 1.50 out of a 3.00 maximum, we find 15 average weighted scores above that point and 2 below. However, 14 of those top AWSs are clustered from 1.93 to 2.81, with 13 from 2.21 to 2.81. The one AWS between 1.50 and 1.93 is 1.56, which is far enough below the others that we could drop it without appreciably changing the overall section's analysis.

The 15 top-rated options in this section and their respective aver­ age weighted scores overall are: (1) teach how to write science news stories logically and clearly, 2.81; (2) teach how to gather science news, 2.69; (3) teach how to conduct successful interviexjs, 2.66;

(4) teach how to analyze or interpret scientific developments, 2.62;

(5) teach how to spot one's own errors and correct one's stories, 2.51; 177

(6) teach how to write many kinds of science news stories, 2.46;

(7) inspire students' confidence in themselves, 2.35; (8) assess stu­ dents’ abilities and begin where they are, 2.33; (9) get students to meet deadlines, 2.31; (10) teach students how to deal with other persons in getting science news stories, 2.26; (11) do well all the skills that one is teaching, 2.25; (12) teach students media law and professional ethics regarding science news stories, 2.22; (13) teach how to write good, interesting news stories' leads, 2.21; (14) identify potential science news reporters and recruit them for the program, 1.93; and (15) teach how to write picture captions or outlines, 1.56. (See Tables 25, 26,

27 and 45.)

Again, the primary emphasis here was on getting students to write well, then on teaching how to conduct interviews and gather science news.

Most of the skills or options listed in this section were deemed of at least moderate importance by the respondents. The teacher must be enough of a generalist to foresee many problems the student may face and devise ways of guiding the students to solve those problems. Addition­ ally, he should be skilled in interpersonal relations and be able to pass on those skills to the science writing students.

(vi) Best Teachers of Science News Writing Courses or Workshops

In this second stage questionnaire section, the respondents ranked the various options from "1" to "8". Ranks were added and the average rank score (ARS) computed by dividing the sums of ranks by the total respondents in the groups being studied. 178

TABLE 45 COMPETENCIES IMPORTANT TO TEACHERS OF POTENTIAL SCIENCE WRITERS: SHOWN ARE TOP CHOICES ABOVE 1.50 AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORES (AWS) RANKED, AND AWS (IN PARENTHESES) BY GROUPS.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Description ALL Writers EducatorsResearchers Editors Teach how to write news stories logically and clearly 1(2.81) 1(2.85) 1(2.79) 1(2.68) 1(2.95) Teach how to gather science news 2(2.69) 2(2.73) 3(2.68) 2(2.55) 2(2.81) Teach how to conduct successful interviews 3(2.66) 3(2.73) 4(2.65) 3(2.46) 3(2.81) Teach how to analyze or interpret developments 4(2.62) 4(2.61) 2(2.69) 4(2.43) 4(2.74) Teach how to spot one's errors and correct work 5(2.51) 6(2.52) 5(2.52) 5(2.41) 5(2.63) Teach how to write many kinds of science stories 6(2.46) 5(2.60) 6(2.48) 9(2.13) 6(2.60) Inspire students' confi­ dence in themselves 7(2.35) 8(2.42) 9(2.37) 7(2.21) 8(2.42) Assess students' abili­ ties & begin at their level 8(2.33) 10(2.34) 7(2.42) 6(2.23) 13(2.28) Get student to meet deadlines 9(2.31) 9(2.39) 8(2.42) 12(1.89) 7(2.56) Teach how to deal with others 10(2.26) 11(2.34) 12(2.28) 11(2.04) 9(2.42) Do well all skills one is teaching 11(2.25) 12(2.21) 10(2.30) 10(2.16) 12(2.35) Teach media law and professional ethics 12(2.22) 13(2.02) 11(2.30) 3(2.20) 10(2.42) Teach how to write good leads 13(2.21) 7(2.44) 13(2.23) 14(1.79) 11(2.42) Identify and recruit potential science writers 14(1.93) 14(1.97) 14(2.01) 13(1.80) 14(1.91) Teach how to write picture outlines 15(1.56) 15(1.48) 15(1.39) 15(1.71) 15(1.77)

NOTE: See also Tables 25, 26 and 27, from which these data are taken. 179

As was mentioned before, the last two options, "A Combination" and "Others," were dropped from this analysis because their artificially lower rankings are not truly representative of the respondents. (See

Page 140 for a discussion of this problem.) This leaves six possible ranked choices. If we again use a half-way point as the cut-off point, the top three-ranked choices would comprise the "best" choices. As it turns out, there is also a clear division between the three top choices and the rest of the options. Those three highest-ranked options are:

(1) experienced science news reporters, with an ARS of 2.14 for all 232 respondents; (2) college journalism instructors with special science news writing and reporting training and experience, with an ARS of 2.21; and

(3) science news editors, with an ARS of 2.39. As the reader may have noticed, these three options are quite closely ranked, within .25 of each other. From the lowest one of them or 2.39, however, it is .89 down to the next option, other editors, which received an ARS of 3.28; and 1.50 down to the following option, college journalism instructors, with an ARS of 3.89. The option, scientists and/or researchers, had an

ARS of 4.47, down 2.08 from the lowest of the top three. (See Tables

28, 29 and 46.)

The respondents’ favorites are clear: they definitely chose expe­ rienced science news reporters and editors, and journalism instructors with special science news writing and reporting training or experience.

We can thus say that these persons listed would probably be the best science writing teachers because of their training and/or experience.

The other options listed, especially scientists and researchers, might be extremely helpful in the educational process as news sources and story ISO

TABLE 46 "3EST" TEACHERS OF SCIENCE NEWS WRITING COURSES OR WORKSHOPS: LISTED ARE ALL WITH AVERAGE RANK SCORES BELOW 3.00.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rank ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors First Experienced Experienced College Experienced Science Science News Science News Journalism Science News News Reporters Reporters Instructors Reporters Editors (2.14) (1.89) w/Special (1.82) (1.95) Training (1.55) Second College Science Experienced Science Experienced Journalism News Science News News Science News Instructors Editors Reporters Editors Reporters w/Special (2.27) (2.63) (2.41) (2.09) Training (2.21) Third Science College Science College College News Journalism News Journalism Journalism Editors Instructors Editors Instructors Instructors (2.39) w/Special (2.75) w/Special w/Special Training Training Training (2.37) (2.61) (2.56) Fourth Other Editors (2.84)

NOTE: See also Tables 28 and 29, from which these data are taken. 181

accuracy checkers, however.

(vii) Best Courses of Action for Supplying the Media with Science Reporters

The respondents to the second stage survey were also definite about

the best course of action to follow to train science news reporters. If

the cut-off point is limited to the half-way point of ranks from "1" to

"6" (again removing the "Other" category or rank "7" because of a paucity

of responses in that category), that point would be an average rank score

(ARS) of 3.00. The top three options then would be: First, "take

college science reporting courses as part of a journalism degree program,

then serve an apprenticeship or internship with an experienced science

reporter before working full time for the media as a science reporter," with an ARS of 1.60; second, "take college science reporting courses as

part of a journalism degree program, then work for the media after gradu­

ation," with an ARS of 2.31; and third, "get a general journalism degree

at a college, then complete science reporting workshops before beginning work as a science reporter," with an ARS of 2.81. All of the respondents

chose these options in the same order. (See Tables 31, 32, 33 and 47.)

The jump down to the next-rated or ranked category, with an ARS of 3.98,

and the following ones, is substantial in comparison.

Perhaps the most important conclusion reached here is that all three

of the top-rated options include completing formal instruction in science news writing. And they were the only three options of the seven listed

that did so. Thus we might also conclude that a potential science news

reporter should complete college training in the form of science reporting undergraduate or graduate courses, with workshops as a "last resort." 182

TABLE 47 "BEST" COURSES OF ACTION FOR SUPPLYING THE MEDIA WITH SCIENCE NEWS REPORTERS: SHOWN ARE OPTIONS WITH AVERAGE RANK SCORES BELOW 3.00.

Science Journalism Scientists/ Newspaper Rank ALL Writers Educators Researchers Editors First Take science Take science Take science Take science Take science reporting reporting reporting reporting reporting courses; get courses; get courses; get courses; get courses; get j ournalism journalism journalism journalism journalism degree; serve degree; serve degree; serve degree; serve degree; serve internship or internship or internship or internship or internship or apprenticeship apprenticeship apprenticeship apprenticeship apprenticeship (1.60) (1.81) (1.58) (1.36) (1.67)

Second Take science Take science Take science Take science Take science reporting reporting reporting reporting reporting courses courses courses courses courses as part of as part of as part of as part of as part of journalism j ournalism journalism journalism j ournalism degree degree degree degree degree (2.31) (2.45) (2.17) (2.27) (2.37)

Third Journalism Journalism Journalism Journalism Journalism degree; then degree; then degree; then degree; then degree; then science science science science science reporting reporting reporting reporting reporting workshops workshops workshops workshops workshops (2.81) (2.87) (2.92) (2.45) (3.00)

NOTE: See Tables 31 and 32, from which these data are taken. (This conclusion ties in with the data reported in Table 34.)

(viii) Other Questions

The respondents in the second stage study generally considered the

teaching of science news reporting and writing at a college or university

department or school of journalism of medium importance of very

important, thus giving impetus to the implementation of science news

reporting courses and workshops. (See Table 37.)

The second stage survey respondents tended to favor relatively long workshops in science news writing, if such are offered. Most favored were workshops of a week or longer, with two weeks getting the most

"votes," then one week, then one month. (See Table 35.)

The respondents also favored relatively long science writing intern­

ships or apprenticeships. Six months was the most chosen time, followed by three months and then one year. (See Table 36.)

Overall Conclusions

In the first stage survey we found a perceived need for more, qualified science news reporters and writers. In the second stage sur­ vey, we found some ideas about how to provide those reporters and writers

1) They should be trained in a college or university school or department

of journalism.

a) They should complete a good liberal arts series of courses

with emphasis on the physical sciences and writing courses.

b) They should learn the skills of good reporting plus other,

more specialized science reporting ones.

c) They should complete science writing graduate or undergraduate courses. If no such courses are given, they should com­

plete science writing workshops of at least two weeks to

one month in length.

d) They should possess many competencies after completion of

their science writing training including the abilities to:

express complex ideas in simple terms, write well-organized,

logical news stories, conduct interviews well, analyze

and interpret research for readers, define scientific

jargon, prepare questions in advance for interviews, spot

errors in and edit their own work, find analogies to help

explain complex ideas, meet deadlines, know science terms,

cover speeches and scientific conventions, solve science

reporting problems, understand legal and ethical problems,

write informative leads, and do simple research to learn

scientific ideas.

e) Outside experiences should be provided so they learn in an

environment in addition to the school setting, and include

informal talks with working science writers and reporters;

attendance at scientific lectures, workshops and conven­

tions; accompanying working science reporters on-the-job;

and the like.

They should obtain on-the-job work experience as a general assignment reporter on a newspaper and as a laboratory research before working as a science news reporter. If possible, they should also work as a science news reporter in an internship or apprenticeship program for three months to a year before working as a science writer/reporter 185

professional.

3) The teachers of potential science news reporters should be currently-

working science news reporters and editors, or journalism instructors

with special science news writing and reporting training or experi­

ence. These teachers should be able to convey many skills and/or

competencies to the potential science news reporters including the

competencies mentioned before. They should also be skilled in inter­

personal relations and able to recruit promising science writing

students and guide them through the science writing program.

Based on these interpretations of the data, and conclusions reached from the first and second stages of the study, we will proceed to isolate principles and construct a model curriculum that may be used to prepare science news -reporters. CHAPTER IV

PRINCIPLES AND A CURRICULUM MODEL FOR DEVELOPING SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS REPORTERS

So far in this study's previous chapters we have identified prob­ lems concerned with the training of science news reporters and writers, and sought solutions to those problems. In this chapter, we will attempt to combine conclusions reached previously with the researcher's theoret­ ical and practical educational knowledge to help formulate a workable plan or model to train potential science news reporters.

A model so constructed should possess those ingredients that would best help potential science writers learn their craft and other knowledge and understandings as easily, quickly and thoroughly as possible. It should combine those ideas most highly rated by our first and second stage respondents with practical applications of the ideas and related educational principles.

Principles

The following principles would form the basis of any training pro­ gram for potential news reporters or writers, and are based on the results of the first and second stages of the study. As described here, they primarily apply to the training of such writers in colleges and univer­ sities, the places that our study respondents indicated would be best.

(1) Potential science writers should obtain a broad, college liberal arts background, with a primary emphasis on writing courses and

186 187

the physical sciences. Writing courses could be in either English or

journalism, but should primarily emphasize logically phrasing ideas in

simple terms. The physical sciences referred to include chemistry,

physics, biology, geology, astronomy, botany, zoology, and the like.

Social science courses such as sociology, psychology, political science

and economics, and mathematics courses, would help round out the liberal

arts education.

(2) Potential science writers or reporters should complete science

reporting courses as part of a college journalism degree program, then

serve a 3- to 12-month apprenticeship or internship with an experienced

science reporter. If this sequence is not possible, some type of science

writing training or experiences should accompany achievement of a general

journalism degree. If the individual completes science writing workshops,

they should last from one to four weeks.

(3) Potential science reporters or writers should be trained in the

skills possessed by all good reporters, plus special abilities required

for their specific jobs. Competencies they should be trained in include:

(a) the ability to express complex ideas in simple terms; (b) the ability

to write well-organized, logical news stories; (c) the ability to conduct

interviews well; (d) the ability to analyze and interpret research for

lay readers; (e) the ability to define scientific jargon; (f) the ability

to prepare appropriate questions in advance for scientific interviews;

(g) the ability to spot errors in and edit their own work; (h) the abil­

ity to find analogies to help explain complex ideas; (i) the ability to meet deadlines; (j) the ability to remember and use scientific terminol­

ogy correctly; (k) the ability to "cover" speeches and scientific conventions; (1) the ability to solve problems that science reporters may face on the job; (m) the ability to understand legal and ethical problems associated with science writing and reporting; (n) the ability

to write good, informative story "leads"; and (o) the ability to do simple research to learn scientific ideas and information.

(4) Potential science writers or reporters should obtain prior work experience as a general assignment newspaper reporter to get practical first-hand reporting experience. They should also work as a laboratory researcher to learn scientific procedures and policies, if possible, as well as work on a college newspaper while in college.

(5) Potential science writers or reporters would probably get the best idea of what science writing jobs entail through a lengthy period of on-the-job training, but other experiences would also be helpful.

These experiences include: (a) attending scientific and medical work­ shops and conventions; (b) attending scientific and medical lectures;

(c) working as a science writing intern on a newspaper for college credit

(d) attending seminars in science writing; (e) accompanying working science writers or reporters on the job for several days; and (f) having informal talks with the science reporters.

(6) Potential science writers should receive science writing in­ struction primarily from experienced science news reporters and editors, and college journalism instructors with special science news writing and reporting training and experience. These persons would (ideally) possess the best combinations of practical science writing, reporting, editing and teaching skills, according to the second stage survey respondents. 189

(7) Teachers of potential science writers or reporters should be able to train them in the skills required for any good investigative reporter, plus those relating to the science specialization. Competen­ cies under this principle include the abilities to: (a) teach students how to write logical, clear science news stories; (b) teach students how to gather science news; (c) teach students how to conduct successful interviews; (d) teach students how to analyze or interpret scientific developments; (e) teach students how to spot and correct errors in their own stories; (f) teach students how to write many kinds of science news stories; (g) inspire students' confidence in themselves; (h) assess students' abilities and begin where they are: (i) get students to meet deadlines; (j) teach students how to deal with others; (k) do well all of the skills one is teaching; (1) teach students media law and profes­ sional ethics regarding science news stories; (m) teach students how to write good, interesting news stories' "leads"; and (n) identify potential science news reporters and recruit them for the program.

The Curriculum Model

Based on the principles identified in the previous section, the fol­ lowing major programs for training science news reporters and writers are presented:

I. Bachelor's Degree Level

First Year Possible Courses: English Writing Courses (2 or 3 depending on whether semester, tri-mester or quarter sys­ tem is used) Introduction to Mass Communications World History Courses (2 or 3) College Mathematics (2 or 3) 190

Chemistry Biology Sociology Summer work as a Research Assistant in a scientific or medical laboratory

Second Year Possible Courses: Basic News Reporting and Writing (Journalism) Advanced News Reporting and Writing News Editing World Literature (2 or 3 courses) Public Speaking Physics Geology History of Science Psychology Summer work as a Research Assistant in a scientific or medical lab­ oratory or summer internship as a general assignment reporter on a small daily or weekly newspaper.

Third Year Possible Courses: Introduction to Science News Reporting (*) Media Law and Ethics Work on the College Newspaper (2 or 3 courses) Photojournalism (Optional) Broadcast Journalism (Optional) Botany Zoology Political Science Philosophy College Requirements and Liberal Arts Electives Summer Internship as a General Assignment Reporter on a large newspaper or in a broadcast station for a broadcast journalism major

Fourth Year Possible Courses: Science News Reporting and Writing #1 (*) Science News Reporting and Writing #2 (*) Geography Astronomy Economics College Requirements and Liberal Arts Electives Science Writing Internship with a newspaper, magazine or news agency of from 3 to 6 months (*)

(*) = Science Writing Courses and/or Experiences 191

II. Master's Degree Level

First Year Possible Courses:

Newswriting and Editing for Graduate Students (if required) Introduction to Science News Reporting (*) Science News Reporting and Writing #1 (*) Science News Reporting and Writing #2 (*) Communication Theory Media Research Techniques Media Problems Seminars Media Law and Ethics The Scientific Method and/or History of Science Individual Studies Courses

Second Year:

Science Writing Internship or Apprenticeship with a newspaper, magazine or news or broadcast agency (*)

Rationale for the Curriculum Model

The Curriculum Model is intended as a guide for science writing

programs. As designed here, it could be "plugged into" an existing

journalism degree major program and formally labeled a "Science Writing

Emphasis." Since courses now exist in most journalism departments and

schools for news-editorial and broadcast journalism majors (as opposed

to advertising, public relations, and/or photojournalism majors), the

science writing courses could easily fit into an existing program or

programs.

The concentration as part of a college degree program is given major

attention here over workshops and other non-college courses of study be­

cause a majority of the second stage survey respondents indicated that

they thought college courses would be the better way of training science

(*) = Science Writing Courses and/or Experiences 192 news reporters and writers. If so desired, however, the same principles and training suggestions could be adapted for workshops and other short courses as required.

The general outline for a bachelor’s degree program given here pro­ vides for a combination of science and journalism courses, plus other courses necessary to meet general requirements at most colleges and to give a good liberal arts background. The liberal arts and sciences back­ ground was highly recommended for potential science reporters and writers by the second stage survey respondents, so history and many social sci­ ence courses are also included. Of course, the individual should be free to vary courses and pick his field(s) of specialization, and take courses related to that field. For example, an individual may wish to specialize in medical reporting and complete mostly pre-medicine courses rather than physics and geology. Or an individual may specialize in aviation reporting, and ignore some of the biology-related courses.

Those science courses listed may help give the individual an overall perspective of general subject areas, however, and acquaint him with the

"scientific method" of thinking. Mathematics courses, also recommended by the second stage survey respondents, help with abstract conceptualiza­ tion and thinking. General chemistry and biology's subject matters deal with the bases of life and much of the universe. Many of the other sciences "borrow" a great many of their basic ideas and/or understandings from them. For example, most things or physical entities in the universe as we know it have a chemical property, and can be broken down into chemical components. Biological scientists often describe life processes in terms of chemical reactions. Even physics, which deals with mechanical 193

and electronic processes, depends on chemistry for some explanations of

energy generation and energy impediments (such as friction). The study

of biology, of course, is basic for an understanding of medical and

health research, among other things.

Physics and geology touch more on the mechanistic side of the

universe, with emphasis on physical properties and (often) large-scale movements of masses. For example, research in physics has the potential

to increase enormously if "breakthroughs" are found to help convert heat and radiation from the sun and nuclear sources directly into electrical energy, rather than using it to heat water into steam which then turns turbines in generators. With the advent of theories such as plate tectonics, and how to use the earth's natural warmth for heating dwell­ ings, interest in geology is also rising. Once new findings in these energy-related areas are found, the demand for science writers with background knowledge in related fields may increase.

A history of science course may help give the students a historical perspective of scientific advances since the beginning of recorded time and the events and discoveries that led up to our current technological level. It would also help show the students that major "breakthroughs" are quite rare, and that most discoveries are based on the work of dozens or hundreds of scientists who contributed prior knowledge to new findings.

Botany and zoology, "spin-offs" from the larger field of biology, deal with plant and animal life. A knowledge of both is essential for science writers who often cover health—related and medical stories, and because many scientific innovations or developments may affect man's welfare in some way. Man is an animal and requires nourishment, care 194

and protection as many animals do. He also eats plants and other

animals whose chemical makeup may affect his own physiological and

psychological well-being in some way.

An astronomy course may help give the student more of a "cosmic"

awareness and basic knowledge concerning space research and developments.

Journalism courses recommended for the potential science news writer

or reporter include many of those required for most journalism majors:

(1) An introduction to mass communications course, to give an over­ view of the media with some of their theories, history, capabilities and

limitations. Although an individual may end up working much or most of his life in/for one medium, a basic knowledge of the other media is ex­

tremely helpful because he may someday change jobs (which is quite prob­ able) , and because many of the basic ideas used by one medium are trans­ ferable to the others.

(2) A basic news reporting and writing course, to train the student in techniques usable in news media jobs. In this course, the individual would learn the basic structure of news stories, how to write logically, and how to find information when needed.

(3) An advanced news reporting and writing course, to give the student more training and experience in actually interviewing people and writing news stories usable by the media. This course would require that the student perfect his own techniques for getting and conducting inter­ views, and learn how effectively to write news and feature stories usable by professional publications.

(4) An editing course, to give the student knowledge and under­ standings of the duties of newspaper editors, and the ability to edit 195 stories, write headlines, and lay out newspaper pages. One major result of this course would be that the student would look at his own stories more critically, and learn to omit unnecessary information and write stories in a more professional manner. Also, since traditionally many newspaper jobs are available for newspaper copy editors at entry levels, and most journalism graduates seek only reporting jobs, good editing

Skills may be a deciding factor in whether an individual gets a media job during or immediately after college.

(5) A media law and ethics course, to give the student a basic knowledge of the laws and ethics that concern the media, and an under­ standing of legal principles involved in working media operations. A good knowledge and understanding of media law can help protect young reporters from causing libel suits against their newspapers and the re­ sulting potential loss of many dollars, for example. Also, a knowledge of other ethical problems and their possible solutions may give him assistance in answering on-the-spot questions he is likely to face while working.

(6) (Recommended) A photojournalism course, to train the student in how to operate 35mm single lens reflex cameras and process photographs in a darkroom, and to give him an understanding of photographic prin­ ciples including contrast, composition, the "decisive moment," etc.

This knowledge may also help the student obtain an entry-level media job while in college or after graduation, as small media operations usually seek employees with multiple skills. It is also excellent training in

"visual literacy." 196

(7) (Recommended) A broadcast journalism course, to train the

student in news writing and interviewing techniques for use on radio and

television newscasts. Many students may wish to pursue more courses of

this type and major in this field. Others may wish to round out their

educations or to possess extra knowledge and understandings in case of

possible job changes later in life.

Courses in a journalism school or department specifically required

for science news reporting and writing majors would include the follow­

ing:

(1) An introduction to science news reporting course, to give the

student an overview of the science reporting and writing field, job

duties of science writers, and views of currently-working science news

reporters, editors, scientists, environmental groups spokespersons, and others regarding the field. (See Page 177 for more information about this

course.)

(2) A science news reporting and writing first course, to train

the students how to research, report and write three- to four-page science

news stories suitable for publication in a newspaper. (See Page 201

for more information.)

(3) A science nev/s reporting and writing second course, to train

the student how to research, report and write longer, magazine-style news

stories of a more in-depth or "investigative" nature. (See Page 203 for

more information.)

It is also highly urged, as recommended by the second stage survey

respondents, that the potential science reporter complete various work

experiences that would aid him in his future work. While he is attending 197

college, for example, it is recommended that certain summer work expe­

riences be completed, if possible. To assist him in getting these jobs

or experiences, the science writing program director should actively maintain a placement service and interest in each science writing student.

These summer experiences would include: One or two summers working as a research assistant in a scientific or medical laboratory, prefer­ ably after the first and second years of college. These experiences would help the student become familiar with the scientific method, the relationships among scientists and others, and the problems scientists and researchers routinely face and overcome. A second experience would include working one or more summers as an intern on a newspaper doing routine reporting and news writing. This experience would help the potential science reporter become better aware of the reporters' duties and responsibilities, and help him perfect a "style" of reporting.

Also while the potential science news reporter or writer is attend­ ing college, it is recommended that he engage in work as a reporter on the college newspaper, preferably during the third or junior year. This would help him develop confidence in his abilities as a reporter and help prepare him for summer internship work on a newspaper and later full-time reporting work.

After the potential science reporter has completed college, it is recommended that he serve a three- to six-month internship as a science reporter or writer with a newspaper, magazine or news agency before enter­ ing that field officially. This activity will help train him more fully for the job and help build self-confidence in his abilities. 198

Similar courses of study and work experiences would be used for a master's degree program in science news writing. If the student entered

this program without any previous journalism courses or experience, a

special course or courses would be required to help him "catch up" with others as far as reporting and writing skills are concerned. Regular graduate-level seminars in communication theory and problems would be required, plus the three previously mentioned science writing courses as well. (See Pages 198 through 206 for more information on these courses.) In addition to his one year of classroom studies outlined on Page 191, the student would also complete a one-year internship or apprenticeship as a science news reporter working for a newspaper, magazine, news agency or broadcast network under the tutorship of a recognized expert.

Outlines of Science Reporting Courses

1. Introduction to Science News Reporting

This course would be the basic prerequisite for all students plan­ ning to go into science reporting. It is primarily an overview of what science writing or reporting is, what science reporters do on their jobs, and what problems the science reporters face and how they solve the problems. Listed below are some of the experiences and people who should be available for this course:

a) A journalism instructor with special science writing training

and/or experience will be the overall instructor and coordi­

nator for the course. He will set up the various experi­

ences for the course, arrange for guest speakers, and ensure

that required audio and visual aids are available when needed. 199

b) Currently-working science news reporters will speak to and

discuss with the students enrolled in the course problems

they have encountered while working as science writers and

other experiences which may help explain their jobs. They

should be available for informal sessions with the students

as well.

c) Currently-working science news editors will present the nature

of science news writing as they perceive it and what they

expect in "good" science news stories, their criteria for

such stories.

Each of the above three group members should also help the students critically examine science news stories to see what is good and bad about them, and tell how they might be improved or changed for the better.

d) Scientists and/or medical researchers will discuss the

problems of science news reporting as they perceive them.

They will cover such matters as the biases of scientists

regarding reporters and the media, and what they expect to

see in the media concerning their research after they have

given interviews to journalists.

e) Environmental groups' spokesmen will speak to the students.

Students should be able to hear and discuss the views of

people who consider themselves directly affected by the

scientists' and researchers' work and research. The students

should learn that scientists do not operate in a vacuum,

but rather that they are affected by (and affect) political

decisions and allocations of public monies. Public interest 200

groups also often have other goals than the topics around

which they are organized. f) Tours of research facilities should be set up. Students

should become aware of the goals, problems and limitations

of various kinds of research activities. They should be

able to see the environments in which the scientists and

researchers work first-hand, and learn some of the methods

and processes they use on the job. g) Students should be able to attend scientific and/or medical

lectures, workshops and conventions to learn the latest

ideas and innovations being discussed and/or announced,

and to observe working science news reporters in action.

If possible, they should be briefed by the science reporters

on what to look for in the lectures, workshops and conven­

tions regarding potential science news stories, how to spot

such stories, and how to report on such stories. h) Students should be given the opportunity to accompany

working science news reporters on the job for several days,

if possible, to observe their working conditions, tech­

niques, and styles of reporting. i) Students should be given special briefings on the special

legal and ethical problems concerned with science news re­

porting and writing. Is a particular research study an

entity in itself or just a small part of a larger quest,

for example? How does one report it? Should one "hide"

things the researcher does not want made public? 201

j) The journalism instructor will bring up and discuss other

problems and policies involved in science news reporting

and writing, and set the overall tone of the course.

2. Science News Reporting and Writing //l.

This course is the basic writing course for the science reporting sequence. In it the student will put into practice ideas that may have been raised in the Introduction course and get practical experience actually interviewing people engaged in research and writing science news stories. The format and expectations for the course include:

a) Before signing up for this course, one should have com­

pleted an advanced newswriting course and the introduction

to science news reporting course just mentioned. Thus, one

should already somewhat skilled in writing general news

stories and familiar with the work of science reporters.

b) The course format will consist of three hours of classroom

"lectures and discussions" for the first three weeks of

the course, then one such period and one science news

story due each week until the end of the course. A jour­

nalism instructor will coordinate the course, grade assign­

ments, and help arrange experiences for the students.

c) Topics for the lecture/discussions will include (in de­

scending order of importance, according to the second stage

survey respondents):

1) How to express complex scientific ideas in an easy-to-

understand manner. 202

2) How to write well organized, logical science news stories.

3) Setting up interviews with scientists and researchers and

conducting them so as to get essential information.

4) How to analyze and interpret research for readers.

5) How to define scientific jargon.

6) How to prepare appropriate questions before conducting

interviews.

7) How to spot one's own errors in science news stories

and correct them.

8) How to use analogies to help explain complex scientific

ideas.

9) The importance of meeting deadlines.

10) The importance of a good knowledge of and familiarity

with scientific terminology.

11) How to cover scientific speeches and conventions.

12) Solving other problems science reporters may face on

the job.

13) Writing good, informative leads for science news

stories.

14) Doing other background research to learn relevant

story information before (and sometimes after) an

interview. d) The students will be responsible for completing one "hard" news

or feature science news story each week. These stories should

be typed and triple-spaced on at least three or four 8%" x 11"

pages. Students may be given news assignments by the instructor acting as an editor, or be sent out to cover scientific

"beats," and find stories on their own. Interviews will be

conducted of cooperating scientists and/or medical researchers,

and reporting will cover research in progress or feature

stories about scientists and/or their work,

e) Guest lecturers will include currently-working science news

reporters who will critique and grade completed science news

and feature stories, and science news editors who may per­

form a similar function. Working scientists and/or re­

searchers may also relate their experiences with science

news reporters and stories that resulted from their inter­

views, and serve to help verify the truthfulness of stories

completed by the student science reporters.

3. Science News Reporting and Writing #2

This course is the advanced writing course for the science news re­ porting sequence. In it, the student will complete longer, more in-depth science news and feature stories. The format and expectations for this course include:

a) The prerequisites for this course are the Introduction to

Science News Reporting and the Science News Reporting and

Writing #1 courses.

b) The format of the course will include lectures and discus­

sions concerning the nature of the stories to be completed

for the course, their length expected, and helpful hints

about how to do research for the stories and organize them, 204

for the first week of the course. After the first week, the

instructor will meet with each of the science writing stu­

dents, and others as indicated below. The student and

instructor will discuss the student's progress at each of

the weekly, 15- to 30-minute meetings, and the instructor

will critique the student's stories when they are turned in.

c) The student will be responsible for completing longer,

magazine-style science news or feature stories of at least

15 pages each. Three such stories will be due if the course

is given on a semester basis, and two such stories will be

due if a quarter system is used at the college in question.

The instructor may assign topics for the stories to indi­

vidual students, or the students may volunteer topics or

choose them from a list provided by the instructor. Stories

completed should be typewritten using triple-spacing on

8h” x 11" pages. d) Science news stories completed for this course will be more

in-depth than those required for Science News Reporting and

Writing //l. The student will be required to do quite a bit

of background research and preparation for the stories,

then go out and interview at least several scientists and

others engaged in research or actively concerned with sci­

entific and/or environmental problems. The resulting story

should be suitable for publication in a regular commercial

newspaper, magazine or college newspaper. 205

e) If possible, the students and the instructor will meet at

the times the stories are due to read and critique each

other's papers. In addition, working science news re­

porters- and editors should also be available to add their

comments about the stories and make suggestions for their

improvement.

4. Science Writing Internships and Apprenticeships

The science writing internships and apprenticeships are designed to give the potential science news reporter practical on-the-job training in the field. (This type of experience was top-rated by the respondents in the Second Stage survey Section III.) As such, they require the active cooperation and assistance of the management and staff of news­ papers, magazines, wire agencies, and other media participating with a college with a science writing program.

Internships in a science writing program would be primarily set up as supervised experiences for undergraduate students, and would normally last one or two quarters or semesters, three to six months or so. The student would be paid a nominal sum by the media organization, say $150 a week in 1979 dollars, would get 3 to 6 college credit hours, and would be expected to learn and do many duties of the professional science re­ porter. A general outline of the internship time might be: First Week— general orientation to the job, including accompanying working science writers on the job for several days, asking science reporters and editors questions about the job and their duties, learning to use .available reference sources, etc. Second Week——verifying information on and 206

rewriting news stories and press releases, making future story contacts

among area scientists and researchers, and orientation to the city or

area of coverage and the research facilities there. Third Week to end

of internship— actual interviews of scientists and researchers conducted

and science news stories written. The professional science news re­

porters and editors will check the stories written for content, accuracy

and writing style and make comments about them to the student, or suggest

ways to rewrite them for improvement.

Apprenticeships in a science writing program would be primarily set

up as supervised experiences for graduate students working on a master's

degree program, and would normally last one year. The student would

again receive a nominal sum to cover his expenses, about $180 a week in

1979 dollars, plus 12 to 20 college credit hours. For this program, however, the student would be more under the tutelage of an experienced

science news reporter or editor recognized as an expert in his field.

Besides general orientation procedures similar to those outlined for internships, the student would be subject to more stringent standards and be expected to be able to research, investigate, develop and write science news stories of more profound importance. Science news stories completed for the apprenticeship duration would include short articles of day-to-day news importance, but also longer, more in-depth or investi­ gative articles which may require several months of intensive effort to complete. Again, articles completed by the student would be checked for accuracy and critiqued by the currently-working, professional science news reporters and editors. 207

Summary

In this chapter we have indicated some general principles that may

be helpful in the training or education of science news reporters and

writers, based on the results of the first and second stages of this

study. These principles included the necessity for obtaining a broad

liberal arts college education with an emphasis on writing and physical

science courses; completing science reporting courses and other jounral-

ism courses as well as an internship or apprenticeship; training in

special abilities for their specific jobs; on-the-job training and other

supervised experiences; and learning from experienced, trained science writing experts who are well qualified as teachers.

We then constructed a curriculum model based on these principles to

aid in the training or educating of science news reporters. The model

listed specific courses a potential science reporter might take, includ­

ing journalism and science writing courses, but was flexible enought that

a student might substitute his own areas of interest for some of the

science and journalism courses suggested. Essentially, a potential sci­

ence news reporter would learn his craft by doing the skills required

over and over, relying on instructors for help when required, until he was proficient at this kind of job.

Next, we turn to the final chapter of this study which deals with

overall conclusions derived from the research so far, and recommendations

for future research studies dealing with science news writing and

reporting. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Training science news reporters is a new field with few current standards and little discussion of practices and policies in the litera­ ture. This study represents an attempt to identify principles which may be used in the training of science news reporters and identify com­ petencies that all "good" science reporters should possess.

Summary of the Study

This study attempted to determine the current quality and quantity of science news in the media, whether more well-qualified science and medical news reporters were needed, and, if so, how such reporters might be educated or trained and who should train them. The study was composed primarily of two stages.

In the first stage, it was determined that the quality and quantity of science news coverage could be improved and increased. A mail survey of 34 science writers, 33 scientists and medical researchers, and 33 newspaper editors and their broadcast counterparts was used to learn these groups' ideas concerning such coverage. Newspapers, magazines and broadcasting staffs who sought out science news information and covered it thoroughly generally had the best coverage. The science magazines such as Scientific American and Science News had the best such coverage, followed by Newsweek and Time, then the other media. (See Tables 4

208 209

and 5.) The first stage respondents thought that experienced science

news reporters were the best persons to cover science news stories,

rather than general assignment reporters. They also said that more science news reporters and editors were needed in the broadcast and print media. (See Tables 6 and 7.)

In the second stage, recommendations about how to train or educate science news reporters were made, who should train them, and what compe­ tencies the potential science news reporters and their teachers should possess. A mail survey of 100 randomly selected science writers, 100 similarly selected journalism educators, 100 scientists or medical re­ searchers, and 100 newspaper editors was used to learn the recommendations from these various concerned occupational groups. Respondents generally favored a broad liberal arts education with an emphasis on physical science and writing courses, prior work experience as a reporter and possibly a laboratory researcher, and contacts with working science re­ porters including on-the-job training, workshops, apprenticeships and internships, among others. Competencies that the potential science reporters should possess centered on writing well and clearly for a

"mass" audience, preparing for and conducting interviews well, and having a good background knowledge of the subject matter. Competencies for teachers of potential science reporters generally paralleled those sug­ gested for the science reporters, plus special interpersonal skills and abilities. Experienced and/or specially trained science news reporters, science news editors, and college journalism instructors were considered the "best" teachers of science news reporting and writing. The respond­ ents generally favored formal college training in science news reporting 210 and journalism reporting courses, plus an apprenticeship or internship if possible. Internships or apprenticeships should last from 3 to 12 months, and science writing workshops from one to four weeks. (See

Tables 14 through 37.)

In a computer analysis of the second stage responses, the journalism educator group was considered most cohesive when measured by agreeing answers to the various survey sections, followed by the scientists or researchers, the science writers, and the newspaper editors. The four groups in general agreed on what prior work experiences the potential science reporter should complete, relevant other experiences, competen­ cies required for science writing teachers, who should teach science writing, and the "best" course of action for supplying the media with science reporters. But they disagreed on what background education the potential science writers should have and what competencies he should possess. (See Tables and .)

Principles reflecting the above findings were identified in Chap­ ter IV, along with related competencies and experiences. In addition a curriculum model was developed that would help train a science news re­ porter. The model's proposed science writing courses could be included as part of a journalism degree course of study at a college or univer­ sity and labelled a "science writing emphasis." Included were four courses or types of experiences: (1) An introduction to science news reporting course, to give an overview of the science news reporting field, the work and problems of science reporters; (2) A science news reporting and writing first course, to give the student practical expe­ rience reporting and writing relatively short newspaper science news 211 stories; (3) A science news reporting and writing second course, to give the student practical experience reporting and writing longer magazine- style science news stories; (4) An apprenticeship or internship program, to give the student practical, yet supervised, on-the-job training as a science news reporter.

Conclusions Related to the Basic Hypotheses

Earlier in Chapter II of this study, we identified five hypotheses that we hoped to confirm or reject by the time the study was completed.

All five hypotheses were confirmed for the most part by the results of the first and second stage surveys, the data reported in previous chap­ ters.

The hypotheses were:

(1) More educated or trained science and medical news writers, re­ porters or broadcasters are needed in the United States, as perceived by science and media specialists. This hypothesis was confirmed by the respondents to the first stage survey. (See Chapter III.)

(2) These science and medical news writers, reporters or broad­ casters should be primarily prepared, or trained and educated by univer­ sities and university journalism or mass communications schools or de­ partments. This hypothesis was for the most part confirmed by the second stage survey respondents. (See Chapter III.) Respondents in this survey stressed the importance of a good liberal arts and sciences education, physical science courses, and journalism or English writing courses. It would appear that, according to the respondents except for the journalism educators, if an individual learns how to write clearly 212

and simply it does not matter whether he learns how to do so in journal­

ism or English courses.

(3) A special science and medical news writing or broadcasting

sequence of courses should be offered by university journalism or mass

communications schools or departments, plus the opportunity for relevant

work experiences. This hypothesis was also confirmed by the second stage

survey respondents. They generally thought that such training was of

moderate importance or very important, and helped identify types of work

experiences they deemed helpful for potential science news reporters and writers. (See Chapters III and IV.)

(4) Principles to be used in formulating such a sequence of experi­

ences, individual science or medical news writing or broadcasting

courses, and for counseling potential science or medical news writers and broadcasters in a university can be identified and ranked as to perceived value in a journalism or mass communications school or department curric­ ulum. These principles were identified in Chapter IV on the basis of the second stage survey. However, all are interdependent, and it is diffi­

cult to say that one is, or several are, necessarily more important than the others for ranking purposes.

(5) An educational model seeking to achieve satisfaction of those principles can be constructed. The model was outlined and discussed in

Chapter IV. It was designed to include liberal arts courses, physical science courses, and others to provide the potential science news re­ porter with a wide background knowledge required for that field of work.

In addition, special science news reporting courses were included to help ensure that the student would know how to complete his job assignments 213 well. If possible, similar or related courses might be given in a sequence or major area of study devoted to photographic, cinematic or illustrative reporting of scientific ideas and innovations.

Conclusions Related to Adequacy of This Study

This study has attempted to isolate some general principles that may be useful in educating or training science news reporters, and to devise a curriculum model that may be used in the educational process. As such, it is one of the "first steps" in the science reporter training field, as there have been few previous related studies.

The study's strengths center on the fact that it deals with a mostly unchartered field, and attempts to develop general ideas or principles that might be used by almost anyone in training or educating science news reporters. Few, if any, previous studies have been specifically oriented towards answering educational questions in this field, and towards help­ ing to specify suggested teachers, competencies, training periods, and educational aids for potential science reporters. The principles and suggested training ideas identified here are general enough that many good, competent journalism instructors and currently working science reporters and editors could apply them using their own personalized teaching styles, examples and audio-visual aids. Yet the principles and suggested training ideas are specific enough that teachers can under­ stand their meanings and orientations with a minimum of ambiguity.

Another strength of the study concerns the nature of the respond­ ents. Few, if any, of the previous studies dealing with training or educating science news reporters asked anyone besides working science 214

writers for their views concerning that training. This is the first,

or one of the first, to query other interested occupational groups as well. And it is probably the first to together query the four groups

used here: science writers, journalism educators, scientists and med­

ical researchers, and newspaper editors. Thus, a more "balanced" view

of training ideas was obtained than that view that might have been ob­

tained from only one group. Even so, the respondent groups' answers were very similar in many respects.

The study has weaknesses as well, of course. Other studies pub­

lished in the literature since planning and research for this one was begun in 1975 overlapped its purposes and duplicated its efforts to some extent. It was only later learned that others were already currently experimenting with science writing programs across the country. These

"others" might have provided valuable input for this study, and ideas and recommendations for its directions, methods and tools used. This study does not immediately concern itself with those science writing programs, their graduates, or employers of the graduates— all of which are worthy of future examination. Nor does it adequately concern report­ ing of science news and innovations using pictures, films and other visual aids.

The questionnaires used here could have been improved. Experiences, competencies and other options listed are too similar, obvious or simple in some cases. A broader range of such options was needed in some places, and a narrower range in others. If possible, more open-ended questions should have been used, despite the coding and analytical problems they pose. 215

Some other weaknesses of the study were caused, in part, by the

researcher’s lack of financial resources at crucial times. For example,

there could have been a larger sample for each of the two surveys to help

reduce possible sample error, and give a more representative response.

The samples used do provide relatively respectable sample error limits in most cases, yet the figures would have been even better with more potential respondents queried. Also, an increase in the respondents would have probably caused an increase in data processing and computer time costs, which can mount up quickly.

Thus, this study, like most, had its share of faults, although its findings may prove valuable or useful to future researchers and teachers of science news reporting and writing.

Basic Recommendations of the Study

The findings of this study outlined in the previous chapters are primarily oriented to setting up science writing programs in colleges and universities. Such programs might be implemented by staffs of depart­ ments, schools or colleges of communications, journalism, English, or even the sciences, whichever organization has the inclination, motivation and resources to do so. Science writing programs at all of those levels and areas have the potential to succeed and prosper, with the help of enthusiastic backers, instructors and students. The media and the popu­ lace would probably greatly benefit from their efforts.

Journalism schools and departments were selected here as the primary places for such training because they would be the most probably site for it, based on previous educational and training patterns. The other 216

organizations mentioned might have more academic and monetary "pull",

however, and thus more likely to begin and maintain such programs, in

some cases. Therefore, we might recommend implementation of such train­

ing or educational programs by whatever staffs and organizations that

can adequately begin and maintain them successfully.

Recommendations in View of the Present Situation

The data reported in this study have pointed to a need for more

science news reporters, and have helped identify principles involved in

training or educating such writers or reporters.

It is realized, however, that the American society includes a

highly competitive, capitalistic framework, and that the addition of more,

specialized reporters may place a drain on media financial resources.

Also at this writing (1979), the American economy is entering a recession,

which does not encourage expansion. Higher education revenues, too, are

dropping, which bodes ill for new educational programs.

Yet the world is becoming more and more technology-oriented, and

its peoples require more and more scientific and technical information.

This need is expected to increase in the future.

Thus, it is recommended that college science writing programs be

begun and maintained wherever possible. Smaller journalism departments' staffs may wish to include one course in science reporting and writing as

a "first step," or include one or two (or more) science writing assign­

ments within a larger general newswriting course. If the idea proves

popular with students (and teachers), expansion may then occur. 217

It is recommended that larger departments or schools of journalism consider the appointment of a science writing coordinator who would set up courses similar to those suggested in Chapter IV, arrange field trips, internships and work experiences for students, and help recruit students into a science writing program. It is suggested that careful planning precede the implementation of any such actions, however.

It is recommended that, if monetary support for science writing pro­ grams in the form of college courses seems lacking, a workshop experience be arranged. The workshop might last from one to four weeks, and would be a concentrated examination of science writing problems and practices plus practical experiences actually reporting and writing science news stories. College credits can sometimes be arranged for such experiences, too.

In addition, alert college administrators may seek money for science writing programs from various governmental agencies and private founda­ tions. Numerous federal agencies, the National Science Foundation, the

Gannett Newspaper Foundation, and other organizations may be convinced to part with money for a pilot program at a college or as matching grants.

Recommendations for Further Research

Even though the researcher confirmed the hypotheses posed earlier in this study as mentioned in the "Conclusions" section above, many other questions were raised during the course of this study that this research could not answer. For example, how good are the science news reporting and writing training programs now in existence? Are there graduates well trained and competent to do their jobs? How do the employers of these 218

graduates rate their work? Thus, it is recommended that more research

be undertaken to help answer various educational problems associated with the training of potential science news reporters.

Some of these possible research areas, based in part on the ques­

tions asked in the preceding paragraph and earlier in this chapter,

include:

(1) A survey of current science writing program instructors at

various American colleges and universities with such programs identified

in the Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs and

Academic Programs in Technical Communication. (See Footnotes 99 and

100.) The survey should be oriented to obtain these instructors' ideas,

recommendations or suggestions about "best" ways to train potential

science news reporters, and what experiences such reporters should com­

plete. The survey should attempt to answer questions similar to those

that this study has asked, plus additional ones. The results from such

a study may be extremely helpful in training or educating science news

reporters because it would be based on actual experiences or ideas of

current teachers of science reporting.

(2) A follow-up study of the science news reporters and writers

trained in the programs listed in the directories listed above. What

were the training procedures and ideas used in their courses? Did these

procedures and ideas help the science news reporters later (on the job)?

Why (not)? Which ideas or things were better than others? Why? What

techniques or exercises that the teachers used were good? Which were

bad? Why? What outside work or supervised experiences were good or

helpful later? Why? 219

(3) A survey of employers hiring graduates of science news reporting programs. What were the programs? What was included in them? Was the graduate well qualified for the job? Why (not)? How could the science news reporting program be improved to help provide better qualified graduates?

(4) Experiments using teachers in actual science writing classroom situations. One study of this type might involve different techniques used in presenting information. Another might involve changes in content used. Others might concern the use of different teachers and/or guest speakers. Or, different personalized "hands-on" experiences, and expe­ riences in-the-field, might be tried. In any case, control groups should be used to aid in analyzing the results of these studies.

(5) Studies concerning how best to convey scientific ideas and innovations using the visual media such as photography, cinema and broadcasting operations or systems.

These types of studies have not yet appeared in reports in the lit­ erature, such as Journalism Quarterly and Public Opinion Quarterly and others. Yet they are sorely needed if this type of reporting is to con­ tinue and grow, and if people are to be trained for it.

Much is still to be done. APPENDIX A

FIRST STAGE SURVEY

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND QUESTIONNAIRE

220 221

P.O. Box 3098 University Station Columbus, Ohio, 43210 July 26, 1976

Dear Sir:

I am a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio State University working on a dissertation concerning the media's communication of science and medical news information to the American public. By the word, science, we are here referring to the physical and biological sciences and not the social sciences. This research study is under the supervision of Dr. I. Keith Tyler, professor in educational communications.

This study includes soliciting judgments from science and medical writers, scientists and medical researchers, print and broadcast editors, and journalism educators to learn: (1) the adequacy with which science news is now covered; and (2) their recommendations for training and educating science and medical reporters. An additional panel of 20 nationally recognized experts from the four groups will help identify and validate principles which should prove of value in setting up appropriate curricula or programs.

Because of your professional expertise, accessibility, and interest in improved science communication, I would greatly appreciate your help in responding to this initial study. Your judgments, and the judgments of others to be queried randomly, will be considered representative of others in your profession.

Would you please complete the attached inquiry sheets and return them to the researcher? A stamped, addressed envelope is included for your convenience.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Sincerely,

Roger A. Myers SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS REPORTING An Ohio State University Ph.D. Research Study -- Roger Myers, Investigator P.O. Box 3098, University Station, Columbus, Ohio, 43210

Name ______Position ____

Address ______Organization

Specialty u

Sex: Age: Highest Education Attained: Male __ Under 30 years __ High School Diploma Female __ 30 to 39 years __ Attended College 40 to 49 years Bachelor 1s Degree 50 to 59 years __ Attended Graduate School 60 and over M as ter1s Oegree Work on Doctorate Doctorate Major Fields of Study: M.D. Degree Bachelor's ______Certificate in

Master's ------o l h e T T Doctorate or M.D. ______

1. Below are some statements about the communication of physical science and medical news information to the American public. Please place a check mark in the appropriate column that best indicates your judgments about the media's coverage of such news. >-0 "O aju o o > td a Extent to which the public has access to science and medical news.

Overall coverage of science and medical news in magazines and newspapers.

Coverage of science and medical news by large metropolitan papers.

Coverage of science and medical news by small daily and weekly newspapers.

Coverage by general circulation news magazines such as Newsweek and Time of science and medical news.

Coverage by specialized magazines such as Scientific American and Science News of science and medical news.

Coverage by women's magazines of science and medical news.

Overall coverage of science and medical news by radio and television broadcasts.

Coverage of science and medical news by commercial radio stations' staffs.

Coverage of science and medical news by public radio stations' staffs. Coverage of science and medical news by the commercial television networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, on a daiIv basis.

Coverage of science and medical news by the commercial television networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, in specials.

Coverage of science and medical news by public television networks, such as the PBS.

Coverage by local commercial television stations' staffs of science and medical news.

Coverage by local public television stations' staffs of science and medical news. 223

II. Below are some statements about the quality of physical science and medical news cov'erage in the media. Please place a check mark in the appropriate column to indicate your judgment for each statement. By quality, we are referring to such things as accuracy, honesty, adequacy of reporting, etc. >.C X I u u u Cl o> T> S — o 41 — — 4) 3 TJ O > s s ac — u. q-

_ _ Overall q u a lity of the scien ce and medicaI news to which the public has access.

The overall q u a lity of science and medical news in magazines and newspapers.

______The qu ality of sci ence and med i ca I • news in large met ro o o l i t an newspapers.

— — — . — — - — ^he q u a lity of sci ence and med i ca I news in small d aily and weekly newspapers.

. The quality of science and medical news in general circ u la tio n magazines such as Newsweek and Time.

— —— _ _ _ The qua I i ty of sc i ence and med i ca I news in spec i a I ized magazines such as S c ie n t if ic American and Science News.

The qu ality of science and medical news in women's najaz i ,

. The overall quality of science and medical news on rad;o and television broadcasts.

The q u a lity of sci ence and med i ca I news on comme rc I a I radio station broadcasts.

i ____ The qu ality of scien ce and med i ca 1 news on oub I i c "ad io station broadcasts.

____ The quality of science and medical news on broadcasts of the commercial te le v is io n networks, N8C, CBS and ABC.

_ The q u a lity of science and medical news on broadcasts of the public te le v is io n networks, such as the p9 S .

. The quality of science and medical news on broadcasts by local commercial te le v is io n sta tio n s.

_ _ The qual ity of science and medical news on broadcasts bv local public television stations.

111. Below are some statements about reporters and ed itors who deal with news stories concerning the physical sciences and medicine. Please place a check mark in the appropriate column to indicate your judgment for each statement.

01 41 4) (j-v a t ^ _ Science and medical news stories should be covered by experienced and qualified specialized science and medical reporters.

, Science and medical news sto r ie s should be covered bv general assignment reporters on a random basis.

, ____ Science and medical news stories should be covered by regular reporters as one of their usual beats.

____ More welI-quaIified and capable science and medical news reporters are needed by the media tcday.

, More wel1-quaIiffed and capable science and medical news ed? tors are needed by the media today.

____ More welI-quaIifIed and capable science and medical news reporters are needed to work on magazine and newspaper s t a f f s .

. More wel I-qual I f led and capable scien ce and medical news reporters are needed to work on radio and te le v isio n news s t a f f s .

, There will be an increasing need for well-qualified and trained science and medical news reporters in the future.

IV. Additional comments or suggestions:

Thank You for your help in completing this important study! APPENDIX B

SECOND STAGE SURVEY

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND QUESTIONNAIRE

224 225

2400 New York Avenue Whiting, Ind., 46394 September 11, 1978

Dear S ir:

Will you do me a favor?

I am conducting a nationwide survey as part of a Ph.D. research study concerning the media's communication of science and medical news information to the American public. This research study is under the supervision of Dr. I. Keith Tyler, professor of educational communications at Ohio State University.

One purpose of this research is to learn the opinions of experts like yourself about methods and procedures for training and educating science and medical reporters. Your answers will help determine the "best" ways of ensuring an adequate supply of future science and medical reporters.

Your name appeared in a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y s e le c te d random sam ple. Your answers are very important to the accuracy of this research even though you may not know any s c ie n c e or m edical r e p o r ter s.

I t will take only a short time to answer the simple questions on the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the stamped reply envelope. All answers are confidential.

Please return the completed questionnaire at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your help.

S in c e r e ly ,

Roger A. Myers 226

SCIENCE AND MEDICAL NEWS REPORTING An Ohio State University Ph.D. Research Study -- Roger Myers, Invest igato r 2400 New York Avenue, Whiting, Indiana, 4b39u

Name Position

Address Organizat ion

S p e c ialty ___

Highest Educatior Attained: Major Fields of Study _MaLe High School Diploma Bacne tor's Female Attended College Bachelor's Degree M a ster s Age: Attended Graduate School Dnc tore te JJnder 30 years Master's Degree _30 to 3*3 years Work on Doctorate _40 to 49 years Doctorate _50 to 59 years M.D. Degree _60 and over Other: ______

1. Please rate the following ideas according to the degree of importance in tr.c preparation of science reporters. Check the blank to the left of the statement to indicate whether you think the idea in the statement would be of Great importance, Moderate Importance, Little Importance, or No Importance.

IMPORTANCE Great Moderate Little No

___ A college liberal arts education. - - ______C ollege physical science courses. --- ______College social science courses. — ____ Col Lege mathematics courses.

______College English writing courses. - -- ______College Journalism writing courses. —— - - ______College computer programming courses. —_ — ______Col l e g e photography courses. .. — . ______C ollege art and drawing courses. ______Co l l e g e foreign language courses.

Other college courses such as (please specify)

Great Moderate Little No

___ Work as a Laboratory Researcher.

______Work as a general assignment newspaper reporter.

______Work as a general assignment broadcast reporter.

______W o r k as a coLlege n e w s p a p e r reporter.

______Other background experiences (please specify) 227

II. Please rate the following ideas according to degree of importance in the preparation of science reporters. Check the blank to the left of the statement to indicate whether you think the idea in the statement would he of Gteat Importance, Moderate Importance, Little Importance', or No Importance.

IMPORTANCE Great Moderate Little No

______A t t e n d i n g scientific and med i c a l lectures.

______Attending scientific and medical workshops and conventions.

______Informal talks with science reporters.

______Attending seminars in science writing.

______Accompanying working science reporters on tne job for several dav«..

______On- t h e - j o b training as a science reporter.

______Internships as science reporters in the news media while getting college course credit.

______R e a d i n g science fiction.

______Playing chess and other games involving abstract thinking.

III. Please rate the following statements of competencies according to the degree of usefulness to potential science reporters. Check the blank to the left of the statement to indicate whether you think the idea in the statement would be of Great Usefulness, Moderate Usefulness, Little Usefulness, or No Usefulness.

USEFULNESS Great Moderate Little No

______Being able to express complex ideas in simple terms.

______Able to define scientific jargon.

______Able to do simple research to learn about scientific Ideas and innovations.

______Able to prepare appropriate questions in advance for scientific interviews.

______Able to conduct interviews well.

______^______Have a wide knowledge of and familiarity with scientific terminology.

______Able to analyze and interpret research for lay readers.

______Able to find analogies to help explain complex ideas.

______Know body language in interview situations.

______Able to write well-organized, logical news stories.

______Able to spot errors in and edit own work.

______Understand legal and ethical problems involved in writing scientific news stories.

______Able to write informative, catchy story "leads".

______Able to photograph accompanying materials.

______Abl e to process photographs in a darkroom.

______Abl e to meet deadlines.

______Able to "cover" speeches and scientific conventions.

______Able to solve problems that science reporters may face on the job. 228

IV. Please rate the following statements of competencies according to degree of importance to teachers of potential science news reporters. Check the blank to the left of the statement to indicate whether you think the idea in the statement would be of Great Importance, Moderate Importance, Little Importance, or No Importance.

IMPORTANCE Great Moderate Little No

______Ability to teach students how to gather science news.

Ability to teach students how to write picture captions or cut lines.

Ability to teach students how to take usable pictures of research materials and equipment.

_____ Ability tc teach students how to process pictures in a photographic darkroom.

______Ability to teach students how to write science news s f ries logically and clearly.

______Ability to teach students how to conduct successful interviews.

Ability to assess students' abilities and begin where they are.

Ability to teach students how to spot their own errors and correct their own stories.

__^ ______Ability to teach students how to analyze or interpret scientific developments.

Ability to teach students how to write many kinds of science news stories.

______Ability to inspire students' c o n f idence in themselves.

Ability to teach students media law and professional ethics regarding science news stories.

Ability to teach students how to write good, interesting news stories' "leads".

______Ability to teach students how to deal with other persons in getting science news stories.

Ability to get students to meet deadlines.

Ability to identify potential science news reporters and recruit them for the program.

Ability to do well all the skills that one is teaching.

V. Please rank the following according to who would be best to teach science news writing courses or workshops. Use a "1" for the best, a "2" for the next best, and so on to "8".

Experienced science news reporters.

_ _ _ Science news editors.

Other editors, especially ______.

College journalism instructors.

College Journalism instructors with special science news writing and reporting training or experience.

Scientists or researchers.

A combination of ______and ______.

Other (please specify) . 229

VI. Please rank the following courses of action for supplying the media with science news reporters. Use a "1" for the highest ranked category, a "2" for the second highest ranked category, and so on to ''7". A potential science reporter should:

______Work with scientists and/or.medicai researchers, then work for the media as a science reporter. Take NO journalism courses.

Be tutored by a currently working science news reporter while working tor the media. rake NO journalism courses.

Get a general journalism degree at a college, then begin work as a science reporter without specialized training.

Get a general journalism degree at a college, then complete science reporting workshops before beginning work as a science reporter.

Take college science reporting courses as part of a journalism degree program, then work for the media after graduation.

Take college science reporting courses as part of a journalism degree prngra-., then serve an apprenticeship or internship with an experienced science repof. - before working full time for the media as a science reporter.

O ther (please specify) ______

VII. If science news writing and reporting instruction is giver, at a college, at wnat lev,.; should it be given:

___ Undergraduace courses. Continuing education or non-credit courses.

___ Graduate courses. ____ Short workshops of ______!e:..

_ _ _ Both Graduate and Undergrad. _ _ _ Other (please specify) ______.

.III. If a college journalism student were completing a workshop in science writing ar.d reporting, how long should the workshop lasL)

___ One hour. Two days. One month.

Three hours. Five days. ___ uther (please specify) ______

Eight hours. Two weeks. .

If a college journalism student were completing an apprenticeship or internship as a science news reporter, how long should that period be)

One week. _____ Three months. Other (please specify)__

Two weeks. Six months. ______

One month. One year. ______

How would you rank the importance of teaching science news reporting and writing at a college or university department or school of journalism?

Very important. _____ Of medium importance. ______Not important.

XI. Here, and on the back of the survey sheets, please giv, id l t ional information vou might suggest for the training of science news reporters or ,jf teachers of science news reporting and writing.

Thank You for your help In completing this important study! Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to Roger A. Myers, 2400 New York Avenue, Whiting, Indiana, 46394. APPENDIX C

SECOND STAGE SURVEY RAW DATA

230 APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Background College Education Courses Suggested for Science Reporters. Importance in Preparation.

Courses ALL SCIENCE WRITERS JOURNALISM EDUCATORS SCIENTISTS NEWSPAPER EDITORS

4J *•)ft) 4J (II CD aj ai aj o) < d o ) ca < M <— 1 < 4 - 1 1 - 1 —4 -4 U U r-> -a 4J ^ a> *o 4J a) 4 -1 h O O ^ U O O U M O -H O S2 H O t-4 O ^ W O - r J O b g O 2 -1 Z Q O 2 -1 Z Q O S -1 Z O O S -I Z Q O S •-) Z Q

Liberal Artsl41 73 12 1 5 39 20 3 0 0 52 16 2 0 1 27 22 A 0 3 23 15 3 1 1

Physical Sciences 149 77 4 0 1 30 31 1 0 0 53 15 2 0 1 40 16 0 0 0 26 15 1 0 1

English Writing 127 71 23 7 4 30 23 7 1 1 31 21 13 4 2 39 14 1 1 1 27 13 2 1 0

Journalism Writing 117 79 26 8 0 19 27 15 1 0 53 14 1 2 1 25 20 8 2 1 20 18 2 3 0 Social Sciences 52 125 40 7 8 11 38 11 1 1 26 33 7 1 4 8 26 15 5 2 7 28 7 0 1

Mathematics 49 120 49 8 6 4 32 20 4 2 19 38 10 1 3 17 27 10 1 1 9 23 9 2 0 Computer Programming 16 77 95 34 10 1 9 36 14 2 9 36 15 9 2 4 18 26 5 3 2 14 18 6 3

Foreign Language 15 78 93 40 6 4 18 26 13 1 7 32 20 10 2 1 16 24 12 3 3 12 23 5 0

Photography 14 57 105 52 4 4 14 31 13 0 5 20 31 14 1 2 12 23 16 3 3 11 20 9 0 Art & Drawing 2 27 107 89 7 0 5 29 27 1 1 7 38 23 2 1 11 19 21 4 0 4 21 18 0

Others 39 22 2 2 167 14 6 0 0 42 8 6 0 0 57 15 8 0 1 32 2 2 2 1 36 APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Background Work Experiences Suggested for Science Reporters. Importance In Preparation.

Experiences ALL SCIENCE WRITERS JOURNALISM EDUCATORS SCIENTISTS NEWSPAPER EDITORS

a) 4 4 4 4 4J 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 <0 4 <0 a) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4-1 u < 4J < 4-1 pH 3 4-1 U r«4 < 4-1 M r*4 <0 ai 4-1 z 4 4 4-1 z 4 a) 4J z 4 4 4-1 z 4 4 4-1 £ 4 'O U 4 •o 4J 4 •o 4J 4 'O 4J 4 T3 4-1 u o o u o ♦H O t-4 o •r4 O z O •pH o u O •H o ^ o S z Q o x ►J z Q O . X ►J z P U 2 z p O S

Newspaper Reporter 126 92 10 2 2 37 22 2 1 0 44 22 3 0 2 15 35 5 1 0 30 13 0 0 0 Laboratory Researcher 54 117 46 12 3 ~11 31 15 4 1 20 33 13 3 2 17 30 9 0 0 6 23 9 5 0

College Paper Reporter 35 117 65 14 1 9 36 14 3 0 16 36 12 6 1 3 25 25 3 0 7 20 14 2 0

Broadcast Reporter 29 86 84 26 7 13 30 13 4 2 8 26 29 6 2 2 18 31 4 1 6 12 11 12 2

Other 21 10 1 1 199 7 3 0 0 52 8 4 0 0 59 4 1 0 1 50 2 2 1 0 38

t o OJ to APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Other Experiences Suggested for Science Reportglne Students. Importance in Preparation.

ALL SCIENCE WRITERS JOURNALISM EDUCATORS SCIENTISTS NEWSPAPER EDITORS Ideas or Experiences

0) os 0) a> as 4-> 4-1 4-1 4-1 as Q> a) a) as a> as a) a] 0) 4-1 u ■ l <2 4-1 u < 4-1 P i-«i <2 4-1 M r“4 < 4-1 U •—4 to a> 4-> Z as 0) 4-J z a} a) 4-1 Z OS a) 4-1 z as 0) 4-1 a> U a) 4-1 a) TJ 4-1 •s. 0) *o 4-1 a) T3 4-1 M o i-t o U U o t 4 O u o 1-4 O V4 o O 5 n O •r4 O OZ *1 Z QO SZ Q O S z Q o Z , 4 z a O 22 z

Attending Lectures 116 92 19 1 A 36 19 5 0 2 38 25 7 0 1 26 25 5 0 0 16 23 2 1 1

Attending Workshops & Convent ions 134 76 20 2 0 36 22 4 0 0 46 20 5 0 0 35 15 6 0 0 17 19 5 2 0

Talks With Reporters 100 100 27 4 1 23 31 6 2 0 40 19 10 1 1 23 26 6 1 0 14 24 5 0 0

Attending Seminars 119 85 23 4 1 27 25 9 1 0 40 26 4 1 0 28 20 6 1 1 24 14 4 1 0 Accompany Science Reporter 107 101 18 4 2 25 33 3 1 0 28 35 5 2 1 30 18 6 1 1 24 15 4 0 0 On-The-Job Training 166 56 6 1 3 48 13 1 0 0 54 14 1 0 2 34 18 3 1 0 30 11 1 0 1

Internships 114 96 15 4 3 28 28 5 1 0 47 21 0 2 1 17 29 8 1 1 22 18 2 0 1

Read Science Fiction 7 37 110 73 5 0 9 31 21 1 5 13 30 21 2 2 6 28 19 1 0 9 21 12 1

Playing Chess 7 48 99 71 7 1 8 24 26 3 4 13 32 20 2 1 16 23 15 1 1 11 20 10 1

to W u> APPENDIX C » Raw Data. Competencies Useful to Potential Science Reporters. Decrees of Usefulness*

Ideas ALL SCIENCE WRITERS JOURNALISM EDUCATORS SCIENTISTS NEWSPAPER EDITORS

01 4J •u (0 QI T3 4-> 0) U O *rl O O O M o o O •rl o si M o •l-l o o 3 Q o Z £ O z o hJ z o O a Al z Express Ideas Simply 221 10 0 0 1 61 1 0 0 0 67 3 0 0 1 51 5 0 0 0 42 1 0 0 0 'Write Logical Stories 204 22 2 2 2 58 3 1 0 0 60 7 i 1 2 46 9 0 1 0 40 3 0 0 0 Do Interviews Me 11 195 35 2 0 0 51 11 0 0 0 67 Jn 1 0 0 41 14 i 0 0 36 7 0 0 0 Interpret Research 194 32 2 0 4 53 8 1 0 0 58 11 0 0 2 47 7 l 0 1 36 6 0 0 1 Define Termsl88 40 2 0 2 50 11 1 0 0 61 7 1 0 2 39 17 0 0 0 38 5 0 0 0 Prepare for Interviews 173 50 5 0 4 44 17 0 0 1 59 8 2 0 2 35 19 2 0 0 35 6 1 0 1 Spot Own Errors 171 49 8 2 2 44 14 3 0 1 54 14 1 1 1 40 13 2 1 0 33 8 2 0 0 Analogies 155 68 5 0 4 44 17 0 0 1 49 18 2 0 2 31 22 2 0 1 31 11 1 0 0 Deadlines 160 56 6 6 4 49 10 0 1 2 52 14 2 2 1 25 23 4 3 1 34 9 0 0 0 Know Terms 139 83 8 0 2 35 24 2 0 1 45 21 4 0 1 35 2C 1 0 0 24 18 1 0 0 Cover Speeches 131 87 11 1 2 39 21 1 0 1 47 20 3 0 1 20 30 5 1 0 25 16 2 0 0 Solve Problems 153 54 5 3 17 44 13 0 0 5 49 13 1 0 3 35 14 2 2 3 25 14 2 1 1 1 Legal Prob. 138 70 20 X 3 33 21 7 0 1 48 16 4 1 2 29 21 6 0 0 28 12 3 0 0 Write Leads 65 118 39 7 •3 26 29 6 0 1 24 30 13 3 1 6 28 17 4 1 9 31 3 0 0 Do Research 69 88 62 8 5 16 22 19 3 2 23 29 17 1 1 14 20 17 3 2 16 17 9 1 0 Photograph 8 90 101 30 3 4 26 25 7 0 1 28 33 7 2 1 16 29 9 1 2 20 14 7 0 Body Language2i 64 104 38 5 4 17 22 17 2 10 21 32 7 1 n 15 29 8 1 4 11 21 6 1 Use Darkroom A 27 117 79 5 1 5 27 27 2 1 9 39 20 2 1 30 19 1 i 8 21 13 0 K> U) APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Competencies Important to Teachers of Science Reporting. Degrees of Importance.

Ideas ALL SCIENCE WRITERS JOURNALISM EDUCATORS SCIENTISTS NEWSPAPER EDITORS

4J0) +JQ> U 0» *■»0) cod) co a) c q 1-) r—I << 4-> J-4 *—i •< 4-» )-l 4-1 H r-l CO 0) 4J z c d O ) < M Z CO OJ -U Z CO CD JJ Z cd Q) -U Z Q) TO +J Q ) T ) 4 J ^ 0 ) rO*J ’*'*« Q) T 3 -U (D'OiJ ^ ^ O -H O £*£ O *H O U O t H Q U O Z •-> Z P O S Z P O S .-3 Z P O Z .-i Z P O X .-3 Z P Write Logical Stories 206 16 2 0 3 59 0 0 0 3 62 5 2 0 2 44 9 0 0 3 41 2 0 0 0 Gather News 182 36 5 1 8 52 6 1 0 3 54 13 2 1 1 40 11 1 0 4 36 6 1 0 0 Conduct Interviews 173 48 1 0 10 51 8 0 0 3 53 14 1 0 3 34 18 0 0 4 35 8 0 0 0 Interpret Research 168 48 7 0 o 46 11 2 0 3 55 12 2 0 2 35 14 3 0 4 32 11 0 0 0 Spot Own Errors 147 68 6 1 10 43 12 3 0 4 44 23 1 1 2 32 19 1 0 4 28 14 1 0 0 Write Many Stories 136 77 9 0 10 44 14 1 0 3 44 20 4 0 3 22 26 4 0 4 26 17 0 0 0 Inspire Confidence 118 90 12 2 10 37 19 1 1 4 36 28 4 1 2 24 24 4 0 4 21 19 3 0 0 Assess Stud. Abilities 125 77 11 1 18 39 13 2 0 8 41 23 3 1 3 27 20 4 0 5 18 21 2 0 2 Deadlines 127 70 15 fc 14 35 20 3 0 4 43 20 3 2 3 23 15 7 4 7 26 15 2 0 0 Deal With Persons 105 94 22 1 10 32 23 3 0 4 29 35 5 0 2 22 19 10 1 4 22 17 4 0 0 Do Well All S k ills 114 81 18 4 15 29 23 4 1 5 38 21 7 1 4 25 20 6 1 4 22 17 1 1 2 Media Law 99 97 24 3 9 20 27 11 0 4 32 31 5 1 2 24 24 3 2 3 23 15 5 0 0 Write Leads 99 97 22 4 10 36 20 3 0 3 33 27 5 3 3 11 27 13 1 4 19 23 1 0 0 Recruit Students 71 99 37 11 14 17 32 7 1 5 28 24 11 4 4 14 25 9 4 4 12 18 10 2 1 Write Cutline33 90 84 15 10 6 26 22 5 3 6 24 33 6 2 12 23 14 2 5 9 17 15 2 0 o Use Camera 16 75 101 31 9 3 18 30 9 2 2 24 34 9 6 18 22 6 4 5 15 15 7 1 Use Darkroom 3 31 116 73 9 1 4 27 27 3 1 9 41 18 2 1 6 29 16 4 0 12 19 12 0 N5 tnCO APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Ranking of Persons as Science Writing Teachers.

ALL PERSON RANKS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DK/M

Experienced Science Reporters 82 61 29 31 11 3 0 1 0 14 Science News Editors 42 76 55 32 6 4 2 0 0 15 Other Editors 1 6 18 22 42 33 19 8 0 83 College Journalism Instructors 1 20 23 54 63 24 10 6 0 31 College Journalism Instructors with Special Training or Exp. 90 38 46 23 13 3 0 3 1 15 Scientists or Researchers 10 10 19 23 35 64 22 18 0 31 A Combination 37 11 10 8 8 7 10 0 0 141 Others 5 2 1 1 2 0 4 5 0 212

SCIENCE WRITERS Experienced Science Reporters 28 15 4 8 3 0 0 0 0 4 Science News Editors 12 22 16 5 1 2 0 0 0 4 Other Editors 0 3 6 8 12 7 4 2 0 20 College Journalism Instructors 0 6 4 12 20 8 3 1 0 8 College Journalism Instructors With Special Training or Exp. 18 11 15 10 2 2 0 0 0 4 Scientists or Researchers 1 4 7 5 5 20 5 4 0 11 A Combination 12 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 43 Others 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 56

JOURNALISM EDUCATORS Experienced Science Reporters 10 25 10 11 7 3 0 0 0 5 Science News Editors 9 13 21 16 4 1 1 0 0 6 Other Editors 1 2 4 6 19 10 8 2 0 19 College Journalism Instructors 1 9 12 18 16 3 3 0 0 9 College Journalism Instructors With Special Training or Exp. 41 12 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 Scientists or Researchers 2 1 3 4 9 24 8 12 0 8 A Combination 13 5 5 1 2 2 4 0 0 39 Others 21011 0 2 1 0 63 237

APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Ranking of Persons as Science Writing Teachers.

SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS

PERSON RANKS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DK/Ni

Experienced Science Reporters 27 14 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 Science News Editors 12 17 14 9 1 1 0 0 0 2 Other Editors 0 0 1 5 6 8 6 2 0 28 College Journalism Instructors 0 2 4 11 17 8 3 1 0 10 College Journalism Instructors With Special Training or Exp. 12 13 13 4 9 0 0 1 0 4 Scientists or Researchers 5 3 6 9 12 11 5 0 0 5 A Combination 7 4 5 5 2 2 2 0 0 29 Others 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 53

NEWSPAPER EDITORS Experienced Science Reporters 17 7 10 4 1 0 0 1 0 3 Science News Editors 9 24 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 Other Editors 0 1 7 3 5 8 1 2 0 16 College Journalism Instructors 0 3 3 13 10 5 1 4 0 4 College Journalism Instructors With Special Training or Exp. 19 2 8 7 2 0 0 2 1 2 Scientists or Researchers 2 2 3 5 9 9 4 2 0 7 A Combination 5 0 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 30 Others 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 40 238

APPENDIX G . Raw Data. Ranking of Courses of Action for Supplying Science Reporters.

ALL COURSES OF ACTION RANKS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DK/Ni

S c ie n tific Work; Then Work as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journalism Courses 10 19 12 21 39 74 22 0 0 35 Science News Reporter Tutoring On-The- Job; No Journalism Courses 8 14 15 28 75 44 13 0 c 35 Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 5 8 14 83 34 36 24 0 0 26 Journalism Degree; Then Science Reporting Workshops 9 46 96 24 17 10 3 0 0 27 Take Science Reporting Courses as Part of a Journalism Degree Program 33 91 45 23 11 4 2 0 0 23 Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 128 34 27 9 2 7 1 0 0 24 Other (Please Specify...... ) 41 5 0 1 3 0 5 0 0 177

SCIENCE WRITERS

S cie n tific Work; Then Work as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journalism Courses 4 6 5 2 6 21 6 0 0 12 Science News Reporter Tutoring On-The- Job; NO Journalism Courses 5 6 8 8 16 5 4 0 0 10 Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 2 1 5 16 ' 12 9 8 0 0 9 Journalism Degree; Then Take Science Reporting Workshops 3 11 19 7 5 6 1 0 0 10 Take Science Reporting Courses as Part of a Journalism Degree Program 12 15 9 10 6 1 1 0 0 8 Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 25 11 13 5 0 1 0 0 0 7 Other (Please Specify...... ) 14 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 42 239

APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Ranking of Courses of Action foe Supplying Science Reporters.

JOURNALISM EDUCATORS

COURSES OF ACTION RANKS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DIC/N/

S c ie n tific Work; Then Work as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journalism Courses 2 3 0 7 12 28 10 0 0 9 Science News Reporter Tutoring On-The- Job; NO Journalism Courses 0 1 3 8 26 19 4 0 0 10 Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 1 2 4 33 12 8 6 0 0 5 Journalism Degree; Then Complete Science Reporting Workshops 1 18 33 8 4 2 1 0 0 4 Take Science Reporting Courses as Part of a Journalism Degree Program 15 32 15 3 1 1 1 0 0 3 Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 41 13 8 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 Other (Please Specify...... ) 11 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 53

NEWSPAPER EDITORS

S c ie n tific Work; Then Work as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journalism Courses 2 3 3 4 7 17 3 0 - 0 4 Science News Reporter Tutoring On-The- Job; NO Journalism Courses 3 2 3 6 18 5 3 0 0 3 Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 2 3 2 17 4 9 4 0 0 2 Journalism Degree; Then Complete Science Reporting Workshops 2 6 23 6 3 0 1 0 0 2 Take Science Reporting Courses ps Part of a Journalism Degree Program 4 23 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 27 6 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 3 Other (Please Specify...... ) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 240

APPENDIX C . Raw Data. Ranking of Courses of Action for Supplying Science Reporters.

SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS COURSES OF ACTION RANKS: 123456789 DK/NA

S cien tific Work; Then Work as a Science Reporter; Take NO Journalism Courses 2748 14 8300 10 Science News Reporter Tutoring On-The- Job; Take No Journalism Courses 0 5 1 6 15 15 2 0 0 12 Journalism Degree; Work as a Science Reporter Without Specialized Training 0 2 3 17 6 10 6 .0 0 12 Journalism Degree; Then Science Reporting Workshops 3 11 21 3 5 2 0 0 0 11 Take Science Reporting Courses as Part of a Journalism Degree Program 2 21 13 7 2 1 0 0 0 10 Take Science Reporting Courses; Get Journalism Degree; Serve Internship or Apprenticeship 35 44112000 9 Other (Please Specify ) 13 00010000 42 FOOTNOTES

(Generally Listed in Order by Date Published)

1. Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science and the Mass Media, New York University Press, New York, 1967.

Sorenson, J. S. and D. D., "A Comparison of Science Content in Magazines in 1964-65 and 1969-70," Page 97, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1973.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, "Trends in Media Coverage of the Issues of the 60's," Page 533, Journalism Quarterly, 1973.

2. For a brief look at some of the names and issues involved in the "Gatekeeper" concept, see the following (listed in order gener­ ally by date published):

(a) Lewin, Kurt., "Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research," Page 143, Human Relations, 1947-48.

(b) Carter, Roy E . , Jr., "The Press and Public School Superin­ tendents in California," Page 175, Vol. 31, Journalism Quarterly, 1954.

(c) Breed, Warren, "Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis," Page 326, Vol. 33, Social Forces, 1954-55.

(d) Breed, Warren, "Newspaper 'Opinion Leaders' and Processes of Standardization," Page 277, Vol. 32, Journalism Quarterly, 1955.

(e) Gieber, Walter, "Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph Editors," Page 423, Journalism Quarterly, 1956.

(f) Breed, Warren, "Mass Communication and Socio-Cultural Integra­ tion," Page 107, Vol. 37, Social Forces, 1958-59.

(g) Carter, Roy E . , Jr., "Newspaper 'Gatekeepers' and the Sources of News," Page 133, Vol. 22, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1958- 59.

(h) Gieber, Walter, "How the 'Gatekeepers' View Local Civil Liber­ ties News," Page 199, Vol. 37, Journalism Quarterly, 1960.

241 242

(i) Gieber, Walter, and Walter Johnson, "The City Hall 'Beat': A Study of Reporter and Source Roles," Page 289, Vol. 38, Journalism Quarterly, 1961.

(j) Edelstein, Alex S., and J. Blaine Schulz, "The Weekly News­ paper's Leadership Role as Seen by Community Leaders," Page 565, Volume 40, Journalism Quarterly, 1963.

(k) White, David Manning, "The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News," Page 160 in People, Society and Communi­ cations, edited by Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White, The Free Press, New York, 1966.

(1) Gieber, Walter, "News Is What Newspapermen Make It," Page 173, People, Society and Mass Communications, as above.

(m) Tichenor, Phillip J., et al., "Predicting a Source's Success in Placing News in the Media," Page 32, Vol. 44, Journalism Quarterly, 1967.

(n) Bowers, David R . , "A Report on Activity by Publishers in Directing Newsroom Decisions," Page 43, Vol., 44, Journalism Quarterly, 1967.

(o) Snider, Paul B., "'Mr. Gates' Revisited: A 1966 Version of the 1949 Case Study," Page 419, Vol. 44, Journalism Quarterly, 1967.

(p) Donohew, Lewis, "Newspaper Gatekeepers and Forces in the News Channel," Page 61, Vol. 31, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967-68.

(q) Olien, Clarice N., et al., "The Community Editor's Power and the Reporting of Conflict," Page 243, Vol. 45, Journalism Quarterly, 1968.

3. Studies regarding "opinion leaders" and the "two-step" and "multi- step flow" of ideas and innovations can be found in many books and articles including the following sample (listed in order by date published):

(a) Lazarsfeld, Paul F., et al., The People's Choice (How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign), Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York, 1944.

(b) Berelson, Bernard R., et al., Voting (A Study of Opinion Formulation in a Presidential Campaign), University of Chicago Press, 1954.

(c) Katz, Elihu, and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence (The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications), The Free Press, New York, 1955. 243

(d) Katz, Elihu, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on a Hypothesis," Page 61, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957.

(e) Klapper, Joseph T., The Effects of Mass Communications, The Free Press, New York, 1960.

(f) Schramm, Wilbur, editor, The Science of Human Communication, Basic Books, New York, 1963.

(g) Pye, Lucian W., editor, Communication and Political Development, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1963.

(h) Campbell, Angus, et al., The American Voter, published by John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.

(i) Stycos, J. Mayone, "The Potential Role of Turkish Village Opinion Leaders in a Program of Family Planning," Page 120, Vol. 29, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965.

(j) Edelstein, Alex S., Perspectives in Mass Communication, Einar Harcks Forlag, Kobenhavn, Denmark, 1966.

(k) DeFleur, Melvin L., Theories of Mass Communication, David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 1966.

(1) Berelson, Bernard, and Morris Janowitz, Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, The Free Press, New York, 1966.

(m) Allen, Irving L., "Social Relations and the Two-Step Flow: A Defense of the Tradition," Page 492, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1969.

(n) Rogers, Everett M . , and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1971.

(o) Havelock, Ronald G., et al., Planning for Innovation (Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge), Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1973.

4. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "The Background and Training of Science Writers," Page 15, Journalism Quarterly, March, 1940.

5. Hyman, Herbert H., and Paul B. Sheatsley, "Some Reasons Why Informa­ tion Campaigns Fail," Page 412, Vol. 11, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947.

6. Swanson, Charles E., "What They Read in 130 Daily Newspapers," Page 411, Journalism Quarterly, Fall, 1955. 244

7. Ellison, Jerome, and Franklin T. Gosser, "Non-Fiction Magazine Articles: A Content Analysis Study," Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, 1959.

8. Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science, the News, and the Public, a report of the National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Survey by the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, New York University Press, 1958.

9. Withey, Stephen B., "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists," Page 382, Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall, 1959.

10. Swinehart, James W., and Jack M. McLeod, "News about Science: Channels, Audiences, and Effects," Page 583, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

11. Almond, Gabriel A., "Public Opinion and the Development of Space Technology," Page 553, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

12. Michael, Donald N., "The Beginning of the Space Age and American Public Opinion," Page 573, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

13. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Science Writers," Page 26, Vol. XIV, No. 2, Nieman Reports, April, 1960.

14. Wilson, J. H., "Technical Journalism: The Need for Its Emphasis," Page 206, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1956.

15. Johnson, Lee Z., "Status and Attitudes of Science Writers," Page 247, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1957.

16. Light, Israel, "Science Writing: Status and Needs," Page 53, Jour­ nalism Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

17. Foster, John, Jr., Science Writer's Guide, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

18. Fraley, Pierre C., "The Education and Training of Science Writers," Page 323, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

19. Ubell, Earl, "Science in the Press: Newspapers vs. Magazines," Page 293, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

20. Sherburne, E. G., Jr., "Science on Television: A Challenge to Creativity," Page 300, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

21. Small, William E., "The Training of the Science Writer," Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964.

22. Mintz, Harold K., "Editing— Unclogging Communications Pipelines," Page 21, Vol. XV, No. 1, Nieman Reports, 1961. 245

23. Columbia Journalism Review Staff, "Two Days in the Press: 1947 vs. 1962," Page 18, Summer, 1962.

24. Tannenbaum, Percy H., "Communication of Science Information," Page 579, Vol. 140, No. 3567, Science, May 10, 1963.

25. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Reporting Science Information through the Mass Media," Page 291, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

26. Metraux, Rhoda, "International Communication of Science Information," Page 332, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

27. Merrill, John C., "Journalism Goes Scientific," Page 10, Vol. XVI, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1963.

28. Johnson, Kenneth G., "Dimensions of Judgment of Science News Stories," Page 315, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

29. Robinson, Edward J., "Analyzing the Impact of Science Reporting," Page 306, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

30. Cohn, Victor, "Are We Really Telling the People about Science?" Page 750, Vol. 148, Science, May 7, 1965.

31. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "At Aputnik Plus 8: More Science News," Page 14, Editor and Publisher, Oct. 30, 1965.

32. Alexander, Louis, "Space Flight News: NASA's Press Relations and Media Reaction," Page 722, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1966.

33. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Two Gemini Space Flights in Two Metropolitan Dailies," Page 120, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1966.

34. Shaw, Donald L., and Paul Van Nevel, "The Informative Value of Medical Science News," Page 548, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1967.

35. Carey, Frank, "A Quarter Century of Science Reporting," Page 7, Vol. XX, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1966.

36. Stuckey, William K., "The University Science Writer: Investigative Reporter, Matchmaker, Freelancer," Page 11, Vol. XX, No. 3, Nieman Reports, September, 1966.

37. Skardon, James A., "The Apollo Story: What the Watchdogs Missed," Page 11, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1967. Also, Part II, Page 34, Winter, 1967-68 issue.

38. Science Staff, "The Synthesis of DNA: How They Spread the Good News," Page 1548, Vol. 158, Dec. 22, 1967. 246

39. Berland, Theodore, "That Rare Animal: The Freelance Science Editor," Page 18, The Quill, January, 1968.

40. Mintz, Morton, "The Pill: Press and Public at the Experts’ Mercy," Page 4, Columbia Journalism Review, Winter, 1968-69. Also, Part II on Page 28, Spring, 1969, issue.

41. DuBridge, Lee A. , "Science Serves Society," Page 1137, Vol. 164, Science, June 6, 1969.

42. Wade, Serena, and Wilbur Schramm, "The Mass Media as Sources of Public Affairs, Science and Health Knowledge," Page 197, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1969.

43. Patterson, Joye, et al., "Who Reads about Science?" Page 399, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1969.

44. Diamond, Edwin, "The Dark Side of the Moonshot Coverage," Page 10, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1969.

45. Chaffee, Steven H . , "Scribes, Scholars, and Scientists," Page 24, The Quill, July, 1968.

46. Funkhouser, G. Ray, "Levels of Science Writing in Public Information Sources," Page 721, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969.

47. Lawrence, GaryC., and David L. Grey, "Subjective Inaccuracies in Local News Reporting," Page 753, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969.

48. Tichenor, Phillip J., et al., "Mass Communication Systems and Com­ munication Accuracy in Science News Reporting," Page 673, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

49. McCombs, Maxwell E., "A Scientific Method for Reporting," Page 757, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

50. Burkett, Warren, "There's More Going On in Science than Some Would Tell," Page 16, The Quill, May, 1970.

51. Lear, John, "The Trouble with Science Writing," Page 30, Columbia Journalism Review, Summer, 1970.

52. Hendin, David, "Environmental Reporting . . . The Shrill Voices Sometimes Get More Credence than They Deserve," Page 15, The Quill, August, 1970.

53. Bukro, Casey, "Environmental Reporting . . . Concerns the Survival of Mankind," Page 28, The Quill, November, 1970. 247

54. O'Keefe, M. Timothy, "The Mass Media as Sources of Medical Informa­ tion for Doctors," Page 95, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1970.

55. Roland, Charles G., "The Public Must Know— But When?" Page 20, The Quill, March, 1970.

56. Tichenor, Phillip J., et al., "Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge," Page 159, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1970.

57. Douglas, Dorothy F., et al., "An Information Campaign that Changed Community Attitudes," Page 479, Journalism Quarterly, Autumm, 1970.

58. Carl, Leroy M . , "Journalism and Science Can Mix," Page 24, The Quill, March, 1970.

59. Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Maxwell E. McCombs, "The Rise and Fall of News Diffusion," Page 107, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971.

60. Murch, Arvin W., "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution," Page 100, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971.

61. O'Keefe, M. Timothy, "The Anti-Smoking Commercials: A Study of Television's Impact on Behavior," Page 242, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1971.

62. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw, "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media," Page 176, Vol. 36, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972.

63. Erskine, Hazel, "The Polls: Pollution and Its Costs," Page 120, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

64. Witt, William, "Multivariate Analysis of News Flow in a Conservation Issue," Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

65. Chase, Dennis J., "Eco-Journalism and the Failure of Crisis Report­ ing," Page 20, The Quill, October, 1972.

66. Oates, William R., "Social and Ethical Content in Science Coverage by Newsmagazines," Page 680, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

67. Althoff, Phillip, et al., "Environmental Pollution Control Attitudes of Media Managers in Kansas," Page 666, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

68. Tichenor, P.J., G. A. Donohue, and C. N. Olien, "Mass Media Functions, Knowledge and Social Control," Page 652, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973. 248

69. Sorenson, J. S. and D. D., "A Comparison of Science Content in Magazines in 1964-65 and 1969-70," Page 97, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1973.

70. Funkhouser, G. Ray, "Trends in Media Coverage of the Issues of the 60's," Page 531, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

71. Sherrod, Robert, "The Selling of the Astronauts," Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, May/June, 1973.

72. Weibe, G. D., "Mass Media and Man's Relationship to His Environment," Page 426, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

73. Hungerford, Steven B., and James B. Lemert, "Covering the Environment: A New 1Afghanistanism'?" Page 475, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

74. Salcedo, Rodolfo N., et al., "A Successful Information Campaign on Pesticides," Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1974.

75. Greenberg, Daniel S., "Let's Hear It for Science," Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, July/August, 1974.

76. Novic, Kenneth, and Peter M. Sandman, "How Use of Mass Media Affects Views on Solutions to Environmental Problems," Page 448, Journal­ ism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974.

77. Brobert, Katie, "Scientists' Stopping Behavior as (an) Indicator of Writer's Skill," Page 763, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

78. Tankard, James W., Jr., and Michael Ryan, "The Right of Review: Error Check or Censorship?" Page 20, The Quill, May, 1973.

79. Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Nathan Maccoby, "Tailoring Science Writing to the General Audience," Page 220, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1973.

80. Witt, William, "The Environmental Reporter on U.S. Daily Newspapers," Page 697, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1974.

81. Tankard, James W., Jr., and Michael Ryan, "News Source Perceptions of Accuracy of Science Coverage," Page 219, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1974.

82. Grunig, James E., "Three Stopping Experiments on the Communication of Science," Page 387, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974.

83. DeBakey, Lois, "Medical Science and Journalism: Prescription for Compatibility," a Reprint published by the Society for Technical Communication, Washington, D.C., of proceedings of the 22nd International Technical Communications Conference in Anaheim, 249

California, on May 14-17, 1975, Pages 37-43. See also articles by the author: "Medical Gobbledygook and Writer's Gookledygobb," in the June, 1971, Illinois Medical Journal, Vol. 139; and "Medicine and the Press: Resolving the Conflicts," in Clinical Research, page 214, Vol. 22, No. 4, October, 1974.

84. Ryan, Michael, and Sharon L. Dunwoody, "Academic and Professional Training Patterns of Science Writers," Page 239, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1975.

85. Pulford, D. Lynn, "Follow-Up of Study of Science News Accuracy," Page 119, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1976.

86. Kim, Holim, "Small Department Can Gain from Science Writing Course," Page 81, Journalism Educator, October, 1977.

87. Newspaper Advertising Bureau, 485 Lexington Ave., New York, 10017, "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers," March, 1978.

88. Bowes, John E . , et al., Communication of Technical Information to Lay Audiences, published by Communication Research Center, School of Communications (DS-40), University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, 1978.

89. Borman, Susan Cray, "Communications Accuracy in Magazine Science Reporting," Page 345, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1978.

90. Schoenfeld, Clay, and John E. Ross, "Environmental Communication Programs 'Come of Age'," Page 3, Journalism Educator, July, 1978.

91. Dunwoody, Sharon, "Science Writers at Work," Research Report No. 7, Center for New Communications and School of Journalism, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., December, 1978.

92. Dennis, Everette E., and James McCartney, "Science Journalists on Metropolitan Dailies: Methods, Values and Perceptions of Their Work," a paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism (AEJ) Convention, in Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978.

93. Schoenfeld, Clay, "An Educator's Perspective on Environmental Communications Today," a paper presented at the AEJ Symposium mentioned in Footnote 92 above.

94. Tichenor, Phillip J., "Teaching and the 'Journalism of Uncertainty'," a paper presented at the AEJ Symposium mentioned in Footnote 92 above. 250

95. Friedman, Sharon M . , "Using Real World Experience to Teach Science and Environmental Writing," a paper presented at the AEJ Sym­ posium mentioned in Footnote 92 above.

96. Goodell, Rae, "Should Scientists Be Involved in Teaching Science Writing— And If So, How?1’, a paper presented at the AEJ Sym­ posium mentioned in Footnote 92 above.

97. Ryan, Michael, "Attitudes of Scientists and Journalists toward Media Coverage of Science News," Page 18, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1979.

98. Nunn, Clyde Z., "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers," Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1979.

99. Pearsall, Thomas E., and Frances J. Sullivan, Academic Programs in Technical Communication, Society for Technical Communication, 1010 Vermont Ave. , N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, 1976.

100. Friedman, Sharon M . , Rae Goodell, and Lawrence Verbit, Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs, Dept, of Chemistry, State University of New York, Binghamton, N.Y., 13901, 1978.

101. Other general reference sources for this study include:

Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science and the Mass Media, New York University Press, New York, 1967.

Reddick, DeWitt, Literary Style in Science Writing, Magazine Pub­ lishers Association, 1969.

Burkett, David Warren, Writing Science News for the Mass Media, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1973.

Rubin, David M . , and David P. Sachs, Mass Media and the Environment, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973.

Schoenfeld, Clay, Interpreting Environmental Issues, from issues of Environmental Education, Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., Madison, Wis., 1973.

102. Almond, Gabriel A. , "Public Opinion and the Development of Space Technology," Page 553, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Maxwell E. McCombs, "The Rise and Fall of News Diffusion," Page 107, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971.

Grunig, James E., "Three Stopping Experiments on the Communication of Science," Page 387, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974. 251

Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science, the News, and the Public, a report of the National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Survey by the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, New York Univer­ sity Press, 1958.

Michael, Donald N., "The Beginning of the Space Age and American Public Opinion," Page 573, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Newspaper Advertising Bureau, 485 Lexington Ave., New York, 10017, "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers," March, 1978.

Nunn, Clyde Z., "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers," Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1979.

Schoenfeld, Clay, "An Educator's Perspective on Environmental Com­ munications Today," a paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., Aug. 12, 1978.

Swinehart, James W . , and Jack M. McLeod, "News about Science: Channels, Audiences, and Effects," Page 583, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Withey, Stephen B., "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists," Page 382, Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall, 1959.

103. Bowes, John E . , et al., Communication of Technical Information to Lay Audiences, published by the Communication Research Center, School of Communications (DS-40), University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 98195, 1978.

Douglas, Dorothy F., et al., "An Information Campaign that Changed Community Attitudes," Page 479, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1970.

Hyman, Herbert H., and Paul B. Sheatsley, "Some Reasons Why Informa­ tion Campaigns Fail," Page 412, Vol. 11, Public Opinion Quarter- ly;, 1947.

McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw, "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media," Page 176, Vol. 36, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972.

O'Keefe, M. Timothy, "The Anti-Smoking Commercials: A Study of Tele­ vision's Impact on Behavior," Page 242, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1971.

Robinson, Edward J., "Analyzing the Impact of Science Reporting," Page 306, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963. 252

Salcedo, Rodolfo N., et al., "A Successful Information Campaign on Pesticides," Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1974.

Tichenor, Phillip J., G. A. Donohue, and C. N. Olien, "Mass Media Functions, Knowledge and Social Control," Page 652, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Witt, William, "Multivariate Analysis of News Flow in a Conservation Issue," Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

104. Borman, Susan Cray, "Communication Accuracy in Magazine Science Reporting," Pag 345, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1978.

Tichenor, Phillip J., et al., "Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge," Page 159, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1970.

Wade, Serena, and Wilbur Schramm, "The Mass Media as Sources of Public Affairs, Science and Health Knowledge," Page 197, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1969.

Also notes listed under Footnote 102 above.

105. Columbia Journalism Review Staff, "Two Days in the Press: 1947 vs. 1962," Page 18, Summer, 1962.

Ellison, Jerome, and Franklin T. Gosser, "Non-Fiction Magazine Articles: A Content Analysis Study," Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, 1959.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, "Levels of Science Writing in Public Informa­ tion Sources," Page 721, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, "Trends in Media Coverage of the Issues of the 60's," Page 531, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, "At Sputnik Plus 8: More Science News," Page 14, Editor and Publisher, Oct. 30, 1965.

Oates, William R. , "Social and Ethical Content in Science Coverage by Newsmagazines," Page 680, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Shaw, Donald L . , and Paul Van Nevel, "The Informative Value of Medical Science News," Page 548, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1967.

Sorenson, J. S. and D. D., "A Comparison of Science Content in Magazines in 1964-65 and 1969-70," Page 97, Journalism Quarter­ ly, Spring, 1973. 253

Swanson, Charles E., "What They Read in 130 Daily Newspapers," Page 411, Journalism Quarterly, Fall, 1955.

106. Novic, Kenneth, and Peter M. Sandman, "How Use of Mass Media Affects Views on Solutions to Environmental Problems," Page 448, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974.

O'Keefe, M. Timothy, "The Mass Media as Sources of Medical Informa­ tion for Doctors," Page 95, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1970.

107. Erskine, Hazel, "The Polls: Pollution and Its Costs," Page 120, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

108. Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Science Writers," Page 26, Vol. XIV, No. 2, Nieman Reports, April, 1960.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Reporting Science Information through the Mass Media," Page 291, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

109. Burkett, David Warren, Writing Science News for the Mass Media, published by Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1973.

Carey, Frank, "A Quarter Century of Science Reporting," Page 7, Vol. XX, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1966.

Cohn, Victor, "Are We Really Telling the People about Science?" Page 750, Vol. 148, Science, May 7, 1965.

DeBakey, Lois, "Medical Gobbledygook and Writer's Gookledygobb," in Vol. 139, Illinois Medical Journal, June, 1971.

DeBakey, Lois, "Medicine and the Press: Resolving the Conflicts," Page 214, Vol. 22, No. 4, Clinical Research, October, 1974.

DeBakey, Lois, "Medical Science and Journalism: Prescription for Compatibility," Reprint published by the Society for Technical Communication, Washington, D.C., of proceedings of the 22nd International Technical Communications Conference in Anaheim, Calif., on May 14-17, 1975.

Foster, John, Jr., Science Writer's Guide, published by Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science and the Mass Media, published by New York University Press, New York, 1967.

Reddick, DeWitt, Literary Style in Science Writing, Magazine Pub­ lishers’ Association, 1969.

Rubin, David M., and David P. Sachs, Mass Media and the Environment, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973. 254

Schoenfeld, Clay, Interpreting Environmental Issues, from issues of Environmental Education, Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., Madison, Wis., 1973.

Ubell, Earl, "Science in the Press: Newspapers vs. Magazines," Page 293, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

110. Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Nathan Maccoby, "Tailoring Science Writing to the General Audience," Page 220, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1973.

Patterson, Joye, et al., "Who Reads about Science?", Page 399, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1969.

111. Tankard, James W . , Jr., and Michael Ryan, "The Right of Review: Error Check or Censorship?", Page 20, The Quill, May, 1973.

Tankard, James W . , Jr., and Michael Ryan, "News Source Perceptions of Accuracy of Science Coverage," Page 219, Journalism Quarter­ ly, Summer, 1974.

112. Poole, Lynn, Science via Television, published by John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1950.

Sherburne, E. G., Jr., "Science on Television: A Challenge to Creativity," Page 300, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

113. Chaffee, Steven H., "Scribes, Scholars, and Scientists," Page 24, The Quill, July, 1968.

Hendin, David, "Environmental Reporting . . . The Shrill Voices Sometimes Get More Credence than They Deserve," Page 15, The Quill, August, 1970.

McCombs, Maxwell E., "A Scientific Method for Reporting," Page 757, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

Merrill, John C., "Journalism Goes Scientific," Page 10, Vol. XVI, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1963.

Ryan, Michael, "Attitudes of Scientists and Journalists towards Media Coverage of Science News," Journalism Quarterly, Page 18, Spring, 1979.

114. Bukro, Casey, "Environmental Reporting . . . Concerns the Survival of Mankind," Page 28, The Quill, November, 1970.

Lawrence, Gary C . , and David L. Grey, "Subjective Inaccuracies in Local News Reporting," Page 753, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969. 255

115. Althoff, Phillip, et al., "Environmental Pollution Control Atti­ tudes of Media Managers in Kansas," Page 666, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Burkett, Warren, "There's More Going On in Science than Some Would Tell," Page 16, The Quill, May, 1970.

Chase, Dennis J . , "Eco-Journalism and the Failure of Crisis Re­ porting," Page 20, The Quill, October, 1972.

DuBridge, Lee A., "Science Serves Society," Page 1137, Vol. 164, Science, June 6, 1969.

Greenberg, Daniel S., "Let's Hear It for Science," Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, July/August, 1974.

Lear, John, "The Trouble with Science Writing," Page 30, Columbia Journalism Review, Summer, 1970.

Mintz, Morton, "The Pill: Press and Public at the Experts' Mercy," Page 4, Columbia Journalism Review, Winter, 1968-69. Also, Part II on Page 28, Spring, 1969, issue.

Roland, Charles G., "The Public Must Know— But When?", Page 20, The Quill, March, 1970.

Tichenor, Phillip J., "Teaching and the 'Journalism of Uncertainty'," a paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, in Seattle, Wash., held on August 12, 1978.

116. Alexander, Louis, "Space Flight News: NASA's Press Relations and Media Reaction," Page 722, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1966.

Diamond, Edwin, "The Dark Side of the Moonshot Coverage," Page 10, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1969.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, "Two Gemini Space Flights in Two Metropolitan Dailies," Page 120, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1966.

Sherrod, Robert, "The Selling of the Astronauts," Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, May/June, 1973.

Skardon, James A., "The Apollo Story: What the Watchdogs Missed," Page 11, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1967. Also, Part II, on Page 34, Winter, 1967-68 issue.

117/. Dunwoody, Sharon, "Science Writers at Work," Research Report No. 7, Center for New Communications and School of Journalism at Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., December, 1978. 256

Science Staff, "The Synthesis of DNA: How They Spread the Good News," Page 1548, Vol. 158, December 22, 1967.

Stuckey, William K., "The University Science Writer: Investigative Reporter, Matchmaker, Freelancer," Page 11, Vol. XX, No. 3, Nieman Reports, September, 1966.

118. Berland, Theodore, "That Rare Animal: The Freelance Science Editor," Page 18, The Quill, January, 1968.

Mintz, Harold K., "Editing— Unclogging Communications Pipelines," Page 21, Vol. XV, No. 1, Nieman Reports, 1961.

119. Johnson, Kenneth G., "Dimensions of Judgment of Science News Stories," Page 315, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Metraux, Rhoda, "International Communication of Science Information," Page 332, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Tannenbaum, Percy H., Communication of Science Information," Page 579, Vol. 140, No. 3567, Science, Hay 10, 1963.

Wiebe, G. D., "Mass Media and Man's Relationship to His Environ­ ment," Page 426, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

120. Tichenor, Phillip J., et al., "Mass Communication Systems and Communication Accuracy in Science News Reporting," Page 673, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

121. Hungerford, Steven B., and James B. Lemert, "Covering the Environ­ ment: A New 'Afghanistanism'?", Page 475, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

Murch, Arvin W., "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution," Page 100, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971.

122. Dennis, Everette E., and James McCartney, "Science Journalists on Metropolitan Dailies: Methods, Values and Perceptions of Their Work," a paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Jour­ nalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978.

Johnson, Lee Z., "Status and Attitudes of Science Writers," Page 247, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1957.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, "The Background and Training of Science Writers," Page 15, Journalism Quarterly, March, 1940.

Pulford, D. Lynn, "Follow-Up Study of Science News Accuracy," Page 119, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1976. 257

Ryan, Michael, and Sharon L. Dunwoody, "Academic and Professional Training Patterns of Science Writers," Page 239, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1975.

Small, William E . , "The Training of the Science Writer," unpub­ lished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964.

Witt, William, "The Environmental Reporter on U.S. Daily News­ papers," Page 697, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1974.

123. Broberg, Katie, "Scientists' Stopping Behavior as (an) Indicator of Writer's Skill," Page 763, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Carl, Leroy M., "Journalism and Science Can Mix," Page 24, The Quill, March, 1970.

Fraley, Pierre C., "The Education and Training of Science Writers," Page 323, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Light, Israel, "Science Writing: Status and Needs," Page 53, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Wilson, J. H., "Technical Journalism: The Need for Its Emphasis," Page 206, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1956.

124. Burkett, David Warren, Writing Science News for the Mass Media, published by Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1973.

Friedman, Sharon M., "Using Real World Experience to Teach Science and Environmental Writing," a paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism, Seattle, Wash., August 12, 1978.

Goodell, Rae, "Should Scientists Be Involved in Teaching Science Writing— And If So, How?", a paper presented at the 1978 AEJ Symposium as above.

Kim, Holim, "Small Departments Can Gain from Science Writing Course," Page 81, Journalism Educator, October, 1977.

Krieghbaum, Hillier, Science and the Mass Media, New York University Press, New York, 1967.

Reddick, DeWitt, Literary Style in Science Writing, Magazine Pub­ lisher's Association, 1969.

Rubin, David M., and David P. Sachs, Mass Media and the Environment, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973. 258

Schoenfeld, Clay, Interpreting Environmental Issues, from issues of Environmental Education, Dembar Educational Research Serv­ ices, Inc., Madison, Wis., 1973.

Schoenfeld, Clay, and John E. Ross, "Environmental Communication Programs 'Come of Age'," Journalism Educator, July, 1978.

125. Carl, Leroy M., "Journalism and Science Can Mix," Page 24, The Quill, March, 1970.

Friedman, Sharon M., et al., Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs, Dept, of Chemistry, State University of New York, Binghamton, N.Y., 13901, 1978.

Pearsall, Thomas E., and Frances J. Sullivan, Academic Programs in Technical Communication, Society for Technical Communication, 1010 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, 1976.

126. The source used was: American Men and Women of Science (The Phys­ ical Sciences), R. R. Bowker Co., New York. Two editions of the source were used for different stages of the study: the 1971-73 edition for the first stage; and the 1976 edition for the second stage.

127. Membership lists of the National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Box H, Sea Cliff, N.Y., 11579; and the Aviation/Space Writers Association, Cliffwood Road, Chester, N.J., 07930.

128. Editor and Publisher International Yearbook, Editor and Publisher, 850 Third Ave., New York City, 10022; and The Working Press of the Nation, Vol. 3, Radio and Television Directory, 1976 Ed., National Research Bureau, Inc., 424 N. Third St., Burlington, Iowa, 52601.

129. Membership lists of the Association for Education in Journalism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 55455.

130. Statistical Abstract of the United States, by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1974 and 1977 editions.

131. Information concerning mail surveys was drawn from many sources including the following (listed in order generally by date published): Backstrom,'Charles H., and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research, Northwestern University Press, Chicago, 1968. Hayman, John L., Jr., Research in Education, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1968. Hyman, Herbert, Survey Design and Analysis, The Free Press, New York, 1968. 259

Nafziger, Ralph 0., and David Manning White, editors, Introduction to Mass Communications Research, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1968. Erdos, Paul L. , Professional Mail Surveys, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1970. Hochstim, Joseph R., and Demetrios A. Athanasopoulos, "Personal Follow-Up in a Mail Survey: Its Contribution and Its Cost," Page 69, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1970. Andreasen, Alan R., "Personalizing Mail Questionnaire Correspond­ ence," Page 273, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1970. Dillman, Don A., "Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public," Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972. Parsons, Robert J., and Thomas S. Medford, "The Effect of Advance Notice in Mail Surveys of Homogeneous Groups," Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972, Page 258. Hackler, James C., and Patricia Bourgette, "Dollars, Dissonance, and Survey Returns," Page 276, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1973. Dunning, Bruce, and Don Cahalan, "By-Mail vs. Field Self-Adminis­ tered Questionnaires: An Armed Forces Survey," Page 618, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1973-74. Hensley, Wayne E., "Increasing Response Rate by Choice of Postage Stamps," Page 280, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974. Placek, Paul J., "Direct Mail and Information Diffusion: Family Planning," Page 548, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75. Carpenter, Edwin H., "Personalizing Mail Surveys: A Replication and Reassessment," Page 614, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75. Stevens, Robert E., "Does Precoding Mail Questionnaires Affect Response Rates?" Page 621, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75. Blumberg, Herbert H., et al., "Response Rates in Postal Surveys," Page 113, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1974. Fuller, Carol H., "Weighting to Adjust for Survey Nonresponse," Page 239, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974. Mandell, Lewis, "When to Weight: Determining Nonresponse Bias in Survey Data," Page 248, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974. Warwick, Donald P., and Charles A. Lininger, The Sample Survey: Theory and Practice, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975. Linsky, Arnold S., "Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review," Page 82, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1975. Filion, F. L., "Estimating Bias Due to Nonresponse in Mail Surveys," Page 482, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1975-76.

132. Moses, Lincoln E., and Robert V. Oakford, Tables of Random Permuta­ tions, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., 1963.

133. The idea for the one-year internship or apprenticeship for graduate science writing majors was borrowed from Dr. Loyal N. Gould, who has successfully used a similar program for training 260 international or diplomatic news correspondents. Gould originated that type of program while at Ohio State University about 1968-70, and later set up a similar one at Baylor Univer­ sity, where he now is chairman of the Journalism Department. There would be obvious differences between the two programs involving international news reporting and science news report­ ing, of course. For example, in Gould’s program the student must be fluent in a foreign language; for the science writing program the student should be knowledgeable in the languages and jargons of science. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Backstrom, Charles H., and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Research. Northwestern University Press, Chicago, 1968.

Berelson, Bernard, and Morris Janowitz. Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. The Free Press, New York, 1966.

Berelson, Bernard R., et al. Voting (A Study of Opinion Formulation in a Presidential Campaign). University of Chicago Press, 1954.

Bowes, John E., et al. Communication of Technical Information to Lay Audiences. Published by Communication Research Center, School of Communications (DS-40), University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, 1978.

Bowker, R. R., Company. American Men and Women of Science (The Physical Sciences). New York, 1971-73 and 1976 editions.

Burkett, David Warren. Writing Science News for the Mass Media. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1973.

Campbell, Angus, et al. The American Voter. Published by John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.

Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1974 and 1977 editions.

DeFleur, Melvin L. Theories of Mass Communication. David McKay Co., Inc., New York, 1966.

Downie, N. M., and R. W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods (Fourth Edi­ tion) . Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1974.

Edelstein, Alex S. Perspectives in Mass Communication. Einar Harcks Forlag, Kobenhavn, Denmark, 1966.

Editor and Publisher. Editor and Publisher International Yearbook. 850 Third Ave., New York City, 10022, 1977.

Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Analysis (Fourth Edition). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1974.

261 262

Ellis, Richard B. Statistical Inference. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1975.

Erdos, Paul L. Professional Mail Surveys. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1970.

Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1976.

Foster, John, Jr. Science Writer’s Guide. Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

Friedman, Sharon M., Rae Goodell, and Lawrence Verbit. Directory of Science Communication Courses and Programs. Dept, of Chemistry, State University of New York, Binghamton, N.Y., 13901, 1978.

Haber, Audrey, and Richard P. Runyon. General Statistics (Third Edition). Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Mass., 1977.

Havelock, Ronald G., et al. Planning for Innovation (Through Dissemina­ tion and Utilization of Knowledge). Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1973.

Hayman, John L., Jr. Research in Education. Charles E. Merrill Pub. Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1968.

Householder, James E., et al. Introduction to the Statistical Method, (Second Edition). Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1970.

Hyman, Herbert. Survey Design and Analysis. The Free Press, New York, 1968.

Katz, Elihu, and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence (The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication). The Free Press, New York, 1955.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1964.

Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of Mass Communications. The Free Press, New York, 1960.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. Science and the Mass Media. New York University Press, New York, 1967.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. Science, the News, and the Public. A report of the National Association of Science Writers, Inc. Survey by the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, New York University Press, 1958. 263

Lazarsfeld, Paul F . , et al. The People's Choice (How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign). Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1944.

Moses, Lincoln E., and Robert V. Oakford. Tables of Random Permutations. Stanford University Press, Stanford,. Calif., 1963.

Nafziger, Ralph 0., and David Manning White, editors. Introduction to Mass Communications Research. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1968.

National Research Bureau, Inc., 424 N. Third St., Burlington, Iowa, 52601. The Working Press of the Nation, Volume 3, Radio and Television Directory, 1976.

Pearsall, Thomas E., and Frances J. Sullivan. Academic Programs in Technical Communication. Society for Technical Communication, 1010 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, 1976.

Poole, Lynn. Science via Television. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1950.

Pye, Lucian W . , editor. Communications and Political Development. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1963.

Reddick, DeWitt. Literary Style in Science Writing. Magazine Publishers Association, 1969.

Rogers, Everett M., and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of Innova­ tions. The Free Press, New York, 1971.

Rubin, David M . , and David P. Sachs. Mass Media and the Environment. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973.

Schoenfeld, Clay. Interpreting Environmental Issues, from issues of Environmental Education. Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., Madison, Wis., 1973.

Schramm, Wilbur, editor. The Science of Human Communication. Basic Books, New York, 1963.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1956.

Spence, Janet T., et al. Elementary Statistics. Prentice-Hall, Engle­ wood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.

Warwick, Donald P., and Charles A. Lininger. The Sample Survey: Theory and Practice. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975. 264

B. ARTICLES, PAPERS AND REPORTS

Alexander, Louis. "Space Flight News: NASA's Press Relations and Media Reaction." Page 722, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1966.

Allen, Irving L. "Social Relations and the Two-Step Flow: A Defense of the Tradition." Page 492, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1969.

Almond, Gabriel A. "Public Opinion and the Development of Space Tech­ nology." Page 553, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Althoff, Phillip, et al. "Environmental Pollution Control Attitudes of Media Managers in Kansas." Page 666, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Andreasen, Alan R. "Personalizing Mail Questionnaire Correspondence." Page 273, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1970.

Association for Education in Journalism Membership Lists, School of Journalism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 55455.

Aviation/Space Writers Association Membership Lists, c/o Cliffwood Road, Chester, N.J., 07930.

Berland, Theodore. "That Rare Animal: The Freelance Science Editor." Page 18, The Quill, January, 1968.

Blumberg, Herbert H., et al. "Response Rates in Postal Surveys." Page 113, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1974.

Borman, Susan Cray. "Communication Accuracy in Magazine Science Report­ ing." Page 345, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1978.

Bowers, David R. "A Report on Activity by Publishers in Directing Newsroom Decisions." Page 43, Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 44, 1967.

Breed, Warren. "Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis." Page 326, Vol. 33, Social Forces, 1954-55.

Breed, Warren. "Newspaper 'Opinion Leaders1 and the Processes of Stand­ ardization." Page 277, Vol. 32, Journalism Quarterly, 1955.

Breed, Warren. "Mass Communication and Socio-Cultural Integration." Page 107, Vol. 36, Social Forces, 1958-59.

Broberg, Katie. "Scientists' Stopping Behavior as (an) Indicator of Writer's Skill." Page 763, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Bukro, Casey. "Environmental Reporting . . . Concerns the Survival of Mankind." Page 28, The Quill, November, 1970. 265

Burkett, Warren. "There's More Going On in Science than Some Would Tell." Page 16, The Quill, May, 1970.

Carey, Frank. "A Quarter Century of Science Reporting." Page 7, Volume XX, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1966.

Carl, Leroy M. "Journalism and Science Can Mix." Page 24, The Quill, March, 1970.

Carpenter, Edwin H. "Personalized Mail Surveys: A Replication and Re­ assessment." Page 614, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75.

Carter, Roy E., Jr. "The Press and Public School Superintendents in California." Page 175, Vol. 31, Journalism Quarterly, 1954.

Carter, Roy E., Jr. "Newspaper 'Gatekeepers' and the Sources of News." Page 133, Vol. 22, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1958-59.

Chaffee, Steven H. "Scribes, Scholars, and Scientists." Page 24, The Quill, July, 1968.

Chase, Dennis J. "Eco-Journalism and the Failure of Crisis Reporting." Page 20, The Quill, October, 1972.

Cohn, Victor. "Are We Really Telling the People about Science?" Page 750, Volume 148, Science, May 7, 1965.

Columbia Journalism Review Staff. "Two Days in the Press: 1947 vs. 1962." Page 18, Summer, 1962.

DeBakey, Lois. "Medical Gobbledygook and Writer's Gookledygobb." In the Illinois Medical Journal, Vol. 139, June, 1971.

DeBakey, Lois. "Medicine and the Press: Resolving the Conflicts." Page 214, Vol. 22, No. 4, Clinical Research, October, 1974.

DeBakey, Lois. "Medical Science and Journalism: Prescription for Com­ patibility." Reprint published by the Society for Technical Communication, Washington, D.C., of proceedings of the 22nd Inter­ national Technical Communications Conference in Anaheim, Calif., on May 14-17, 1975, pages 37-43.

Dennis, Everette E., and James McCartney. "Science Journalists on Metropolitan Dailies: Methods, Values and Perceptions of Their Work." A paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978.

Diamond, Edwin. "The Dark Side of the Moonshot Coverage." Page 10, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1969. 266

Dillraan, Don A. "Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public." Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972.

Donohew, Lewis. "Newspaper Gatekeepers and Forces in the News Channel." Page 61, Volume 31, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967-68.

Douglas, Dorothy F., et al. "An Information Campaign that Changed Com­ munity Attitudes." Page 479, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1970.

DuBridge, Lee A. "Science Serves Society." Page 1137, Vol. 164, Science, June 6, 1969.

Dunning, Bruce, and Don Cahalan. "By-Mail vs. Field Self-Administered Questionnaires: An Armed Forces Survey." Page 618, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1973-74.

Dunwoody, Sharon. "Science Writers at Work." Research Report No. 7, Center for New Communications and School of Journalism at Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., December, 1978.

Edelstein, Alex S., and J. Blaine Schulz. "The Weekly Newspaper's Leadership Role as Seen by Community Leaders." Page 565, Vol. 40, Journalism Quarterly, 1963.

Ellison, Jerome, and Franklin T. Gosser. "Non-Fiction Magazine Articles: A Content Analysis Study." Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, 1959.

Erskine, Hazel. "The Polls: Pollution and Its Costs." Page 120, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

Filion, F. L. "Estimating Bias Due to Nonresponse in Mail Surveys." Page 482, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1975-76.

Fraley, Pierre C. "The Education and Training of Science Writers." Page 323, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Friedman, Sharon M. "Using Real World Experience to Teach Science and Environmental Writing." A paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Educa­ tion in Journalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978.

Fuller, Carol H. "Weighting to Adjust for Survey Nonresponse." Page 239, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974.

Funkhouser, G. Ray. "Levels of Science Writing in Public Information Sources." Page 721, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Maxwell E. McCombs. "The Rise and Fall of News Diffusion." Page 107, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971. 267

Funkhouser, G. Ray, and Nathan Maccoby. "Tailoring Science Writing to the General Audience." Page 220, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1973.

Funkhouser, G. Ray. "Trends in Media Coverage of the Issues of the 60's." Page 531, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

Gieber, Walter. "Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph Editors." Page 423, Journalism Quarterly, 1956.

Gieber, Walter. "How the 'Gatekeepers' View Local Civil Liberties News." Page 199, Vol. 37, Journalism Quarterly, 1960.

Gieber, Walter, and Walter Johnson. "The City Hall 'Beat’: A Study of Reporter and Source Roles." Page 289, Vol. 38, Journalism Quarterly, 1961.

Gieber, Walter. "News Is What Newspapermen Make It." Page 173, in People, Society and Mass Communications, edited by Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White, The Free Press, New York, 1966.

Goodell, Rae. "Should Scientists Be Involved in Teaching Science Writing — And If So, How?" A paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978.

Greenberg, Daniel S. "Let's Hear It for Science." Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, July/August, 1974.

Grunig, James E. "Three Stopping Experiments on the Communication of Science." Page 387, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974.

Hackler, James C., and Patricia Bourgette. "Dollars, Dissonance, and Survey Returns." Page 276, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1973.

Hendin, David. "Environmental Reporting . . . The Shrill Voices Some­ times Get More Credence than They Deserve." Page 15, The Quill, August, 1970.

Hensley, Wayne E. "Increasing Response Rate by Choice of Postage Stamps." Page 280, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974.

Hochstim, Joseph R., and Demetrios A. Athanasopoulos. "Personal Follow- Up in a Mail Survey: Its Contribution and Its Cost." Page 69, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1970.

Hungerford, Steven B., and James B. Lemert. "Covering the Environment: A New 'Afghanistanism'?" Page 475, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

Hyman, Herbert H., and Paul B. Sheatsley. "Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail." Page 412, Volume 11, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947. 268

Johnson, Kenneth G. "Dimensions of Judgment of Science News Stories." Page 315, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Johnson, Lee Z. "Status and Attitudes of Science Writers." Page 247, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1957.

Katz, Elihu. "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on a Hypothesis." Page 61, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957.

Kim, Holim. "Small Departments Can Gain from Science Writing Course." Page 81, Journalism Educator, October, 1977.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. "The Background and Training of Science Writers." Page 15, Journalism Quarterly, March, 1940.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Science Writers." Page 26, Volume XIV, No. 2, Nieman Reports, April, 1960.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. "Reporting Science Information through the Mass Media." Page 291, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. "Two Gemini Space Flights in Two Metropolitan Dailies." Page 120, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1966.

Lawrence, Gary C., and David L. Grey. "Subjective Inaccuracies in Local News Reporting." Page 753, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1969.

Lear, John. "The Trouble with Science Writing." Page 30, Columbia Journalism Review, Summer, 1970.

Lewin, Kurt. "Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research." Page 143, Human Relations, 1947-48.

Light, Israel. "Science Writing: Status and Needs." Page 53, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Linsky, Arnold S. "Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review." Page 82, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1975.

Mandell, Lewis. "When to Weight: Determining Nonresponse Bias in Survey Data." Page 248, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1974.

McCombs, Maxwell E. "A Scientific Method for Reporting." Page 757, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media." Page 176, Vol. 36, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972.

Merrill, John C. "Journalism Goes Scientific." Page 10, Vol. XVI, No. 2, Nieman Reports, June, 1963. 269

Metraux, Rhoda. "International Communication of Science Information." Page 332, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Michael, Donald N. "The Beginning of the Space Age and American Public Opinion." Page 573, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Mintz, Harold K. "Editing— Unclogging Communications Pipelines." Page 21, Vol. XV, No. 1, Nieman Reports, 1961.

Mintz, Morton. "The Pill: Press and Public at the Experts’ Mercy." Page 4, Columbia Journalism Review, Winter, 1968-69. Also, Part II on Page 28, Spring, 1969, issue.

Murch, Arvin W. "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution." Page 100, Vol. 35, Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1971.

National Association of Science Writers Membership Lists. NAWS, Inc., Box H., Sea Cliff, N.Y., 11579.

Newspaper Advertising Bureau, 485 Lexington Ave., New York City, 10017. - "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers." March, 1978.

Novic, Kenneth, and Peter M. Sandman. "How Use of Mass Media Affects Views on Solutions to Environmental Problems." Page 448, Journal­ ism Quarterly, Autumn, 1974.

Nunn, Clyde Z. "Readership and Coverage of Science and Technology in Newspapers." Page 27, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1979.

Oates, William R. "Social and Ethical Content in Science Coverage by Newsmagazines." Page 680, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

O'Keefe, M. Timothy. "The Mass Media as Sources of Medical Information for Doctors." Page 95, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1970.

O'Keefe, M. Timothy. sThe Anti-Smoking Commercials: A Study of Tele­ vision's Impact on Behavior." Page 242, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1971.

Olien, Clarice N., et al. "The Community Editor's Power and the Report­ ing of Conflict." Page 243, Vol. 45, Journalism Quarterly, 1968.

Parsons, Robert J., and Thomas S. Medford. "The Effect of Advance Notice in Mail Surveys of Homgeneous Groups." Page 258, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1972.

Patterson, Joye, et al. "Who Reads about Science." Page 399, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1969. 270

Placek, Paul J. "Direct Mail and Information Diffusion: Family Plan­ ning." Page 548, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75.

Pulford, D. Lynn. "Follow-Up of Study of Science News Accuracy." Page 119, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1976.

Robinson, Edward J. "Analyzing the Impact of Science Reporting." Page 306, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Roland, Charles G. "The Public Must Know— But When?" Page 20, The Quill, March, 1970.

Ryan, Michael, and Sharon L. Dunwoody. "Academic and Professional Training Patterns of Science Writers." Page 239, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1975.

Ryan, Michael. "Attitudes of Scientists and Journalists toward Media Coverage of Science News." Page 18, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1979.

Salcedo, Rodolfo N., et al. "A Successful Information Campaign on Pesticides." Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1974.

Schoenfeld, Clay, and John E. Ross. "Environmental Communication Programs 'Come of Age'." Page 3, Journalism Educator, July, 1978.

Schoenfeld, Clay. "An Educator's Perspective on Environmental Communi­ cations Today." A paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environmental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, Seattle, Wash., Aug. 12, 1978.

Science Staff. "The Synthesis of DNA: How They Spread the Good News." Page 1548, Vol. 158, Dec. 22, 1967.

Shaw, Donald L . , and Paul Van Nevel. "The Informative Value of Medical Science News." Page 548, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1967.

Sherburne, E. G., Jr. "Science on Television: A Challenge to Creativity." Page 300, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Sherrod, Robert. "The Selling of the Astronauts." Page 16, Columbia Journalism Review, May/June, 1973.

Skardon, James A. "The Apollo Story: What the Watchdogs Missed." Page 11, Columbia Journalism Review, Fall, 1967. Also, Part II on Page 34, Winter, 1967-68 issue.

Small, William E. "The Training of the Science Writer." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964.

Snider, Paul B. " ’Mr. Gates' Revisited: A 1966 Version of the 1949 Case Study." Page 419, Vol. 44, Journalism Quarterly, 1967. 271

Sorenson, J.S. and D.D. "A Comparison of Science Content in Magazines in 1964-65 and 1969-70." Page 97, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1973.

Stevens, Robert E. "Does Precoding Mail Questionnaires Affect Response Rates?" Page 621, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1974-75.

Stuckey, William K. "The University Science Writer: Investigative Re­ porter, Matchmaker, Freelancer." Page 11, Vol. XX, No. 3, Nieman Reports, September, 1966.

Stycos, J. Mayone. "The Potential Role of Turkish Village Opinion Leaders in a Program of Family Planning." Page 120, Vol. 29, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965.

Swanson, Charles E. "What They Read in 130 Daily Newspapers." Page 411, Journalism Quarterly, Fall, 1955.

Swinehart, James W., and Jack M. McLeod. "News about Science: Channels, Audiences, and Effects." Page 583, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1960.

Tankard, James W., Jr., and Michael Ryan. "The Right of Review: Error Check or Censorship?" Page 20, The Quill, May, 1973.

Tankard, James W., Jr., and Michael Ryan. "News Source Perceptions of Accuracy of Science Coverage." Page 219, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1974.

Tannenbaum, Percy H. "Communication of Science Information." Page 579, Vol. 140, No. 3567, Science, May 10, 1963.

Tichenor, Phillip J., et al. "Predicting a Source's Success in Placing News in the Media." Page 32, Vol. 44, Journalism Quarterly, 1967.

Tichenor, Phillip J., et al. "Mass Communication Systems and Communica­ tions Accuracy in Science News Reporting." Page 673, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1970.

Tichenor, Phillip J., et al. "Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge." Page 159, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1970.

Tichenor, Phillip J., G. A. Donohue, and C. N. Olien. "Mass Media Functions, Knowledge and Social Control." Page 652, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1973.

Tichenor, Phillip J. "Teaching and the 'Journalism of Uncertainty'." A paper presented at the Symposium on Teaching Science and Environ­ mental Writing, Association for Education in Journalism Convention, in Seattle, Wash., on August 12, 1978. 272

Ubell, Earl. "Science in the Press: Newspapers vs. Magazines." Page 293, Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 1963.

Wade, Serena, and Wilbur Schramm. "The Mass Media as Sources of Public Affairs, Science and Health Knowledge." Page 197, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 1969.

White, David Manning. "The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News." Page 160 in People, Society and Communications, edited by Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White, The Free Press, NYC, 1966.

Wiebe, G. D. "Mass Media and Man's Relationship to His Environment." Page 426, Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, 1973.

Wilson, J. H. "Technical Journalism: The Need for Its Emphasis." Page 206, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1956.

Withey, Stephen B. "Public Opinion about Science and Scientists." Page 382, Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall, 1959.

Witt, William. "Multivariate Analysis of News Flow in a Conservation Issue." Page 91, Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

Witt, William. "The Environmental Reporter on U.S. Daily Newspapers." Page 697, Journalism Quarterly, Winter, 1974.