An Exploratory Study of Credibility Issues in Astronomy Press Releases Research & Applications Lars Holm Nielsen Nanna Torpe Jørgensen Lars Lindberg Christensen Roskilde University Kim Jantzen ESA/Hubble ESA/Hubble Roskilde University E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Summary Key Words Current developments in the media marketplace and an increased need for visibility to secure funding are leading inevitably to faster, simpler and more Credibility aggressive science communication. This article presents the results of an Hype exploratory study of potential credibility problems in astronomy press releases, Science Communication their causes, consequences and possible remedies. The study consisted of Astronomy eleven open-ended interviews with journalists, scientists and public information Visibility Press Releases officers. Results suggest that credibility issues are central to communication, deeply integrated into the workflow and can have severe consequences for the actors (especially the scientist), but are an unavoidable part of the communication process. Many scientists have the impression that sci- studies about this important, but rather elusive, Introduction ence reporting is inaccurate and that science topic are difficult to find in the literature. Science communication operates in the mod- news is often overstated (Shortland and Gre- ern media marketplace and competes for gory 1991, p. 8; Dunwoody 1986, p. 11). This How widespread are credibility problems in head lines with politics, business, sports, crime perception has, in the case of astronomy, been astronomy press releases? What factors cause and large commercial communicators such as shown to be false by Shaefer et al. (1999), who these credibility problems? What are their con- the entertainment industry. Science communi- found that none of 403 evaluated newspaper sequences and how can they be reduced? It is cation is partly a political tool and the pressure articles on astronomy significantly mislead the the purpose of this exploratory study is to an- on the communicator to deliver is greater than reader. Furthermore, most errors in the evalu- swer these questions. ever. Due to the very nature of public com- ated articles could be attributed to the fact that munication, the temptation to overstate the im- they were reporting on front-line science, where The topic of astronomy was chosen partly for portance of scientific results or to take credit for no reliable conclusion has yet been reached. its inherent fascination for the public and partly more than is deserved is great. Two of the more Scientists and journalists can also have quite as it is a fundamental science — one where well known examples of credibility problems different perceptions of the term accuracy, and credibility issues do not involve risks to hu- within astronomy and physics are the “NASA thus “accuracy” for journalists is usually miss- man lives or substantial commercial interest Mars meteorite” case (Kiernan 2000) and the ing the required level of detail for scientists (Pe- as compared with fields such as health care “Cold fusion” case (Gregory and Miller 1998, ters 1995). (Madsen 2003). p. 61). Credibility in science communication is one This paper only examines the credibility of the The extent of the damage done to the public of the most actively discussed issues in sci- com munication of scientific results, and not the perception of science and scientists by exam- ence communication today: ‘How far can we, cre dibility of the actual scientific results them- ples like these is very difficult to measure. A in the name of science communication, keep selves. We thus assume that the peer-review recent public opinion survey (European Com- pushing, or promoting, our respective results or pro cess produces credible scientific results, mission, 2005) has shown that Europeans ge- projects without damaging our individual, and though some scholars question this claim ne rally see scientists as being credible and thus also our collective credibility?’ (Robson (Russell 1986, p. 93; Nelkin 1995, p. 150; Gre- having a positive impact on society. Journalists 2005, p. 162). As science communicator Rob- gory and Miller 1998, p. 168). The communi- scored poorly in the survey, but still much bet- ert Hurt states (interview 4): ‘In public affairs you cated scientific results, by their very nature as ter than politicians who were almost at the bot- are pulled between two poles: sensationalizing cut ting-edge information, may of course later tom of the scale. the results and correctness.’ However, serious be proved wrong, but this is how the scientific process works. The question whether the com- municated results are “true” to the actual scien- Method ring themes among the different actors tific results is here treated independently of the were found. intrinsic quality and scientific importance of the Eleven open-ended, in-depth interviews with results themselves. a semi-structured interview guide approach 5. Condensation of interviews to statements: (Kvale 1996, p. 129) were conducted with sci- Each interview was then further reduced ence communication actors2. The topics of the with the aid of the identified themes to a Study Design interviews were specified in advance, but the list of statements. This exploratory study was inspired by the sequence of the questions and responses from 6. Validation of statements: To ensure that the interviewees were not restricted to choices panel discussion, ‘Keeping our Credibility: the statements did not misrepresent the provided by the interviewers. Release of News’, held at the Communicating interviewee the statements were validat- Astronomy with the Public 2005 conference at ed against the recorded interviews. the European Southern Observatory in Munich The authors conducted eleven face-to-face in June 2005.1 interviews in person (one interview was con- 7. Approval of statements: Each list of state- ducted with two persons who are close collab- ments was sent to the interviewee for 3 We chose to examine the problem of cred- orators ) in Munich, Baltimore, New York and approval to validate the reduction proc- ibility in astronomical press releases from the Boston and one interview was conducted by ess described above and to give them a perspective of the actors in the science com- telephone. Each interview lasted approximately chance to comment. munication process: scientists, journalists and one hour and was recorded digitally with the public information officers at large governmen- verbal permission of the interviewee. tal and intergovernmental scientific organiza- Results tions. According to Madsen (2003) and sourc- Interviewees were chosen to match one of the es quoted therein, nearly 50% of all reported following profiles: Finding 1: Credibility is primarily defined science news in the media result directly from as being honest and doing your home- press releases, making this particular way of • Scientists closely relating to the work of pub- work. communicating science news very important. lic information officers, either as scientific Eleven out of twelve of the interviewees largely support in the development of press releas- defined credibility in science communication A qualitative rather than a quantitative approach es (outreach scientists) or as evaluators of as being honest and doing your homework was chosen because we, as in parallel studies the public information officers’ work. well. Interestingly, Heck (interview 3) defined (Treise and Weigold 2002), wanted to identify credibility as, ‘credibility occurs if the message and understand the issues as experienced by • Science journalists specializing in astrono- that you conveyed have been received credible the actors themselves. The qualitative ap- my. by the receiver’, which implies that the commu- proach allowed us to adapt to many kinds of • Public information officers from large gov- nicator is responsible for tailoring the message in such a way that it is well received. responses and to explore uncovered issues in ernmental scientific institutions. greater detail. Furthermore, we assumed that by conducting face-to-face interviews we could • Scientists who are otherwise deeply involved Hype and exaggeration was generally defined ask more penetrating questions on sensitive is- with science communication. by all interviewees as taking credit for more sues and so explore the more important issues than you deserve by overstating importance in greater detail. of science results e.g. by increasing visibility The public information officers and scientists overly. Care should be taken if the astronomy-related were selected from two of the largest govern- results presented here are used to draw broad- mental and intergovernmental astronomy re- Finding 2: Credibility issues are ubiquitous er conclusions about science communication search organizations in Europe and the United and integrated into the public information in general. However, this paper may serve as a States of America, namely the European South- officer (PIO)-Journalist interaction. basis for designing quantitative studies of the ern Observatory (ESO) and the National Aero- There is a general view that a certain amount credibility of general science communication. nautics and Space Administration (NASA). of exaggeration of scientific findings in press releases is necessary to reach the general pub- We followed seven steps in the analysis of the lic (science journalist Schilling, interview