Watchdogs and advocates Professor Monika Taddicken on science communication in times of crisis

Professor Monika Taddicken on science communication in times of crisis
Christian Drosten, Sandra Ciesek, Viola Priesemann, Melanie Brinkmann – these people are some of the faces of the Covid-19 pandemic. They are the voices of science that have shaped the public debate. The experts provided information about the disease, its spread, and prevention and protection measures – using their own social media channels. How did this direct communication work and how did it change scientific communication? This is the subject of the DFG-funded project “Science Communication in Pandemics: The role of public participation in social media discussions”. We discussed the results with Professor Monika Taddicken, head of the Institute for Communication Studies at TU Braunschweig.

Professor Taddicken, what exactly was the subject of your study?

The starting point of our project was the realisation that direct communication by scientists via their own social media channels plays an important role in the public debate. During the pandemic, this communication also influenced the behaviour and acceptance of protective measures. Our main questions were: How are scientists participating? How do they engage with the public? And how does the public distinguish the real scientists from the would-be experts?

That sounds exciting. For your study, you analysed Twitter posts. What did you find out?

We analysed around 42,000 Twitter posts in six different time periods using a combination of manual coding and automated machine learning-based analysis. This allowed us to gain a number of insights. For example, we were able to show that scientists used scientific evidence in their tweets, while laypeople used anecdotal evidence in the sense of personal experience.

An analysis of the Twitter discourse of eight virologists whom we identified as particularly relevant in a multi-stage process – including Christian Drosten, Melanie Brinkmann and Sandra Ciesek – shows that they referred to scientific evidence, i.e. scientific studies, statistics or methods, in 15 percent of their tweets. We expected a somewhat higher percentage.

This can probably be explained by the fact that Twitter (now: X) is not a communication platform where you can describe your knowledge in great detail. However, we chose Twitter specifically for our study because, as an “elite platform”, it reached journalists and political actors, but was also used directly or indirectly by the general public during the pandemic. These eight virologists were also particularly visible and became more so over time.

We also saw that the proportion of evidence-based communication increased over time – from ten to 23 per cent – and that these tweets were shared more frequently. This is not only an exciting result, but we also found it encouraging given that another key finding was that evidence was being shared more frequently on Twitter and therefore being disseminated more widely.

You also examined the role of the communicating scientists.

We found that the role of scientists has evolved from that of pure evidence providers to that of communicators. In addition to sharing scientific findings, they also formulated calls to action and media criticism.

We categorised the scientists’ posts into roles such as “media watchdogs” and “advocates”. The watchdogs often refer to and evaluate media coverage, which we hadn’t necessarily expected. At the same time, we found that many scientists had also formulated proactive calls to action for society and policymakers, for example, that hygiene measures should be followed. This also revealed a new dimension of their role, characterised by the coincidence of an exceptional situation, namely the pandemic, and the enormous communication possibilities of social media.

Over time, however, there was a noticeable return to more traditional role behaviour, perhaps due to learning effects, with a greater focus on disseminating information. The emotionality of the posts also decreased over time.

In addition to tweets, you also analysed YouTube videos. How did you approach this and what were the results?

We compared videos from real and apparent experts who had been rated as most trustworthy in a previous survey of almost 1,000 participants. To do this, we conducted interviews with users by showing them video clips – two each of real experts and fake experts. We wanted to know how they decided whether or not to believe the experts in the video. We found that authenticity, such as the style of communication, and the context in which the scientists appeared were very important to people. Many had a detailed image in their minds of how scientists should behave and used this image to validate their opinions by comparing them with their expectations.

In many cases, this comparison of expectations also helped participants to distinguish real experts from fake ones, as fake experts often failed to meet certain expectations. However, if they were perceived as authentic, for example, it was much more difficult to identify them as a pseudo expert.

As soon as the experts appeared in more formal contexts, for example in a TV studio or at the Federal Press Conference, this was always directly mentioned as a criterion of trustworthiness, as was, for example, the media logo of a public news channel. Thus it was recognised that journalism has a gatekeeping function and can better establish trustworthiness.

Why did you choose to study YouTube and Twitter in particular?

We chose Twitter because it has a large number of multiplier actors – journalists, science communicators, scientists, politicians, for example – and because it offers a good opportunity to interact with the public. YouTube, on the other hand, is audiovisual and an important source of information for many people, especially but not exclusively young people.

What were the main difficulties or challenges in your study?

One of the biggest challenges was that during the pandemic, many facts were initially unclear. Uncertainty about particular issues led to a grey area where information could often not be properly categorised. We often lacked the specific technical background to distinguish between real experts and apparent experts. For this reason, we have adopted a very elaborate approach to identifying experts, consisting of several stages, including affiliation and recent publication activity

The “swearing” of the apparent experts often involves putting information that may not be wrong in itself into the wrong context. Or things are left out, creating a false impression.

A study is still pending in Braunschweig. In our YouTube analysis, we have noticed that many fake experts use scientific graphics. We want to do an experiment to see to what extent this scientific presentation actually influences whether something is trustworthy or not, even if the content itself is rather dubious..

Is there any evidence that social media algorithms have an impact on scientific presentation?

We couldn’t prove this specifically. Although we found that Twitter bots automatically share content, we can’t say definitively whether they had a positive or negative impact on the dissemination of evidence-based tweets.

Does it make a difference whether scientists communicate through their own channels or whether their statements are published through the Twitter account of their institution, for example a university?

We focused was on individual communication by scientists because we wanted to find out how these individuals act and communicate on social media. Twitter had an interesting dynamic because it often enabled informal communication and many people did not appear only as scientists, so their professional and private lives became blurred. For many, it was a platform for exchange in a way that X is not.

In your study, you also found that academic titles play a role in how scientists are perceived. How important are such titles?

Titles such as doctor or professor are classic indicators of trust. Our studies have shown that mentioning such titles can increase the audience’s perception of expertise. The same applies to mentioning the institution or the excellence of the institution, such as the elite university Harvard. These aspects are crucial for credibility.

In addition, scientists can increase credibility by referring to scientific studies rather than personal examples. Incomprehensible scientific terms, on the other hand, reduce trustworthiness.

Trust and credibility in science is often based on the idea that it is neutral. What kind of reactions did you get in your study?

In the interviews, many participants expressed the expectation that scientists should remain objective. At the same time, we found that statements that have an emotional impact are viewed positively. For example, we also showed a video clip of Professor Melanie Brinkmann in which she is not making a scientific statement. A common response was: “She is speaking from her heart”. There is a tension between neutral science and the responsibility to speak out.

During the pandemic, there was a lot of discussion about whether scientists were getting too involved in politics. Do you think this damages the truthfulness of science?

Yes, I think it can be damaging.
In the short term it can be compelling, but in the long term it can undermine trust in science. According to our analysis, the public expects scientists to be a neutral point of reference. They should not simply wade into every discussion, but should clearly state their positions when they change or abandon them. On the other hand, I have also received feedback, which I believe is justified, that people expect experts to provide advice, a classification, an opinion or a stance.

Independence is also important for integrity, especially when it comes to third-party funders. For example, we have found that trust in research institutes with links to industry is significantly lower.

What do you think of the expectation that scientists should express themselves in the media, even if they are reluctant to communicate with the public?

I don’t think it’s necessary. I’m often asked whether everyone should have a YouTube channel or an Instagram account. I don’t think it makes sense from a public relations perspective if we just have more and more individual communication. Institutionalised communication is just as important. We need coordinated communication, especially when it comes to topics that affect the general public.

However, there should still be individual scientists who address the public directly. This direct contact can also help to bridge the relatively wide gap between lay people, the public and science.

In my opinion, not everyone needs to communicate, but those who want to should be supported in doing so. For example, with information about the potential impact of their communication on the public.

Finally, what can science communication do to strengthen trust in science?

Science communication should provide information about what is being done, why it is being done and what the current state of affairs is. In addition to presenting expertise, transparency and a focus on dialogue are key. In the age of social media, the public expects more transparency regarding the work of scientists. It is important that scientists are open to feedback and willing to engage in dialogue.