Science Coverage: What Does the Audience Want and Really Need? Exploring Media Consumption in Ukraine

Abstract

In today’s world, effective science communication enhances the ability of a society to develop, seek breakthroughs and innovate; it consolidates the nation and unites people and science. Such kind of communication through the media has the potential to influence the public understanding of scientific and technological development, explore the ways to overcome challenges, increase the life quality and achieve improvement and prosperity. Mass media is an important source of science content and the main translator of social stereotypes concerning the image of science and scientists. Based on data from a survey of a wide age range of media consumers, the study reveals a social request for saturation of the Ukraine’s media with science content. Yet the research findings suggest that the current status of science does not fully meet the needs of Ukrainian audience and does not promote the critical thinking among media consumers. Besides, it was found out that people would prefer expanding the range of thematic coverage of science and reporting topics that are socially relevant and beneficial to the public. Finally, the study indicates that Ukraine needs qualified science journalism, including maintaining professional norms, preventing the pseudoscience spread and supporting public demands, for quality science coverage.

Keywords

Media Science Coverage Science Communication Ukraine

Introduction: Ukraine’s Science Communication’s Roots

The research studies carried out so far (Joubert, 2018; Manzini, 2003; Massarani, 2014; Olesk, 2017) confirm the interconnection between science and science communication, on the one hand, and specific socio-historical, political and economic contexts, on the other hand. Ukrainian science has acutely felt it on itself. ‘Isolation, economic hardship and rampant corruption during the transition from communism to capitalism in the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union’ (Schiermeier, 2019, p. 162), as well as the population impoverishment, protest movements, loss of confidence in the government and the brain drain abroad led to the destruction of science in the country. Since 1991 (when Ukraine became an independent state), Ukrainian science has suffered almost a five-time reduction in the number of scientists (Malitsky, 2018, p. 28). Today, the decline of science manifests itself in the miserable material condition of scientists, the outdated research infrastructure, brain drain intensification and a steady decrease in government funding.

Scholars (Dolgova et al., 2019) note the correlation between science financing and science communication. Attention to communicating science and the formation of a public demand for awareness of the work of the scientific industries are inherent in countries with a high level of funding for research and development. In contrast, in Ukraine, as in other post-Soviet countries, due to economic difficulties and political cataclysms, science had been put aside for a long time. During the 1990s, the population engaged in everyday struggle for survival was almost not interested in science. Later, in the period of the 2000s, the socio-economic situation in Ukraine, although slowly, began to improve. This, and the broad and heated discussions on the further development of the country, as well as the spreading use of the Internet brought about renewed public interest in a wide range of issues, including science. In turn, this led to growing media coverage of science, including the Internet. A qualitatively new stage of science communication began after the ‘Euromaidan’ revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity (November 2013–February 2014). It was triggered by massive protests against the authorities’ withdrawal from the European integration course, and it ended with a change in the country’s leaders. Ukrainian citizens formed a request for the development of a democratic and prosperous Ukraine. This ‘prompted the election of a pro-European government, raising hopes among scientists that Western partnerships would form and steer them out of international isolation’ (Schiermeier, 2019, p. 162). Due to the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine got a historic chance to revive science and accelerate its separation from the obsolete Soviet-style science system.

Under such conditions, today, publicly communicating science, which is ‘a major indicator of the social development of democratic societies’ (Cassany et al., 2018, p. 9), performs an increasingly important role.

Main Features of Today’s Media Treatment of Science

Mass media provide general public with a site for science news dissemination. Communicating science matters via different media comprise any media messages about science, namely media materials referring to scientific activities or knowledge, having references to scientific institutions or scientists, or dealing with other institutional processes that involve or influence science (Olesk, 2017). Science communication can be done by both scholars and professional journalists reaching the public to share academic insights. Researchers (Ashwell, 2016, p. 379; Greco, 2002) emphasise the significant role of science communication via media in the development of society; for instance, Szu et al. (2017, p. 596) claim that ‘Popular media influences ideas about science constructed by the public’. Manzini (2003, p. 191) maintains that: ‘Public accessibility into and participation in science are matters of basic human rights, justice, and equity’.

This is particularly true when considering the role of science in meeting the needs of developing countries. According to Dickson (2005), democratic dialogue on science-related matters is critical for modern societies; hence, providing reliable information in an accessible manner is an essential prerequisite for this to occur. Moreover, Nguyen and Tran (2019, p. 973) argue that in developing countries, science journalism plays an almost exclusive role in informing and engaging laypeople with science and its sociocultural, economic and political implications.

Within the Ukrainian scientific community, not much attention is focused on science communication. Media reportage of science is a rather neglected topic for scholars, and it is covered by very few investigators. However, academic research and publication is an important indicator of the field development; for instance, Massarani (2014) notes that scientific research production in science communication in Latin America needs to be pushed and made visible. Likewise, the same actions need to be taken to encourage science communication research in Ukraine.

Currently, science coverage in Ukrainian media cannot be considered as effective (Diedushkina, 2015, p. 46). According to Filonenko (2013, p. 407), the audience is deprived of science-related content. Petrushka (2017, p. 185) proves that the popular science segment of mass media in Ukraine is insignificant. Varych (2014b, p. 157) explains such phenomena by three particular facts: first, the high cost involved in publishing popular science magazines (it is assumed that such a magazine is of large volume, printed on high-quality paper and contains professional photos); second, low purchasing capability of Ukrainians; and third, lack of qualified journalists.

Having considered science covering in Ukraine, it should be noted that the niche market of popular science media includes multi-thematic print outlets: Science and Technology (monthly), Science and Society, Universe, Outlook (bimonthly), Inventor and rationalizer (quarterly) as well as mono-topical magazines Around the World, Hetman (monthly), Historical Kaleidoscope, Ukrainian culture, Diabetic (bimonthly), Our Sky, Green Carpathians, Well (quarterly). All these media publications are domestic, except Science and Technology, that is an international Ukrainian–Russian media. Besides, there is one foreign magazine that has been published by the Burda-Ukraine media company since 2018, History. New View, which is licensed by the British edition History Revealed. To say the truth, such projects were not successful previously; for example, the Ukrainian-language version of National Geographic had to stop being published because of the difficult economic situation, though it was in the Ukraine’s market during 2013–2014. Likewise, because of the unprofitability, the Ukrainian edition of Scientific American—magazine World of Science stopped its running (1998–2003). Besides, there are specialised online media on science: Kunsht, ‘My Science, Pulsar Scientific, Historical Truth, Expedition ХХІ, Microbe and Me, and Interesting Science.

With regard to television, it mainly deals with dubbing popular science programmes of foreign (mostly Russian and American) production; for instance, ‘Mega’ TV channel, which positions itself as a popular science channel, offers mostly translated foreign programmes and few own projects such as ‘Pride of Ukraine’, ‘Ukraine: Forgotten History’, ‘The War Within Us’, ‘Treasure.ua’, ‘Science.ua’ and ‘Fake History’. Programmes offered on other TV channels related to history are ‘Ukraine: Return of its History’, ‘Declassified History’ (‘1+1’ Channel) and ‘Time Machine’ (Channel 5); and those related to medical issues are ‘Med-expertise’ (Channel 5) and ‘I am ashamed of my body’ (‘STV’ Channel). On the radio, there are a small number of programmes on science such as ‘Knowledge module’, ‘Be healthy’, ‘IDEAlists’, ‘Mirror of History’, ‘Academia’ (‘UA: Ukrainian radio’) and ‘Academy of Sciences’ (‘New Time’ Radio).

Most topics represented in the media are similar, basically history, medicine and technology novelties. In addition to popular science media, non-specialised print and online media have sections or columns devoted to science and technology; television channels and radio stations inform about science in news releases. Generally, in the Ukraine’s media, the share of science content compared with others—political, sports, entertainment, etc.—is negligible. The media often suppress topical issues by the overflow of entertainment, information poor and sensational content that does not promote the spread of science knowledge.

Nevertheless, Varych (2014a, p. 11) believes that in Ukraine, interest in science journalism will gradually recover. Petrushka (2017, p. 178) argues that in the Ukrainian society, particularly among the youth, there is a need for qualitative and actually popular science content. A similar situation exists in other post-Soviet states; for instance, in Russia, the demand for science topics in the media is also growing (Dolgova et al., 2019).

However, there is limited understanding of how the non-scientist audience perceive science through the media and their influence on laypeople’s attitudes to science and scientists. ‘The organizations, the science journalists they employ, and science itself have long been comfortable with relatively superficial understandings of audience’ (Dunwoody, 2007, p. 241). Recently, much of the research into how science is communicating to broad public and what the audience thinks and feels about science reportage has been mainly conducted in West Europe (e.g., de Semir, 2010; Irwin, 2001; Scharrer et al., 2016) and Northern America (e.g., Brossard, 2013; Dunwoody, 2007; Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009; Szu et al., 2017) with some exceptions regarding other regions (e.g., Massarani, 2014; Nguyen & Tran, 2019). Noticeably, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge on how people in Ukraine perceive science-related matters presented by the media within local socio-historical, political and economic contexts in which they operate. In contrast to increasing public opinion on rising Ukrainian science status in the society, issues of Ukrainian science communication, especially the media coverage of science, remain underexplored.

In order to shed light on the aspects mentioned above, a thorough research of the presently dominant characteristics of the audience’s attitude to the mass media reporting science is necessary. What is needed today for science covering by Ukraine’s media to keep pace with the sociopolitical changes in the country? What does science coverage mean in the eyes of the media consumers? What do citizens want from science communication via the media? These questions require studying.

Methodology

In this research article, an empirical method, that is, face-to-face survey, was used to determine the main trends of science news consumption, as well as to find out what criteria and features, according to Ukrainians, should correspond to the media as sources of science-related information. The research methodology is based on the premise that a survey is a convenient and effective method for gathering data and identifying the population’s views, attitudes, opinions, etc. on a certain issue or problem. Face-to-face survey allows both obtaining quantitative data and also observing and reporting nuances as expressed by the respondents themselves.

The survey form contained open-ended and close-ended questions in reference to various aspects regarding media science coverage. Close-ended (multiple-choice) questions were used to collect survey responses within a limited frame of options. Open-ended questions were used as they ‘licit responses that describe more closely the real views’ of the surveyed and can provide ‘information that would never have surfaced had respondents been forced to choose from a list of answers’ (Edwards et al., 1997, p. 26). Hence, the questionnaire consisted of four close-ended and four open-ended questions (plus 1 question related to respondent’s age). Besides, people had the opportunity to comment on each question and answer, and these comments were also registered to collect additional information.

Totally, 800 respondents have been surveyed. They live in five different Ukrainian cities, namely Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytskyi, Lutsk, Rivne and Ternopil. In each city, 160 people were selected by using a convenience sampling; they were surveyed in different places on the streets. The main purpose of the research was explained to them. Information related to respondent’s name or personal data was not included in the survey form, since such questions could provoke a false or deliberately fictitious answer. That is why in this study, the anonymous survey form was chosen. During the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate age; therefore, the data were aggregated into four age groups (18–25 years, 26–40 years, 41–60 years and >60 years). Overall, there was a good tendency to participate in the survey (8–10% of refusals in each of the cities). The survey lasted from May 2018 to March 2019.

The survey covers topics as follows: whether people are interested in media science reporting, regularity of monitoring science news, preferred media sources of content about science, thematic coverage, whether science content satisfies the interests of media consumers, attitudes to science news presentation by the media and trust in media reports on science.

Results: What Are People’s Views About Science Communication Through the Media?

The survey reveals that the majority of respondents (568 out of 800) are interested in media science reporting, that is, 71% of all participants. They are dominant in every age category, but the most in the youngest and younger groups. These results indicate a social demand for science communication in mass media. Among the reasons for turning to science content, respondents mentioned the following: to use the received information for practical purposes, to be aware of science issues, for self-education and self-improvement, for study and for work. A significantly less number of respondents (232 people, 29%) do not turn to mass media for science content because of lack of time, lack of interest in science, or lack of trust in the media.

In response to the question about preferred media sources of science information, 56% of respondents indicate news websites, 22% television, 11% social networks, 6% print media, 3% radio and for 2% of people, this does not matter (see Figure 1). Hence, the majority of respondents choose news sites, which are popular in all age groups, but mostly among young people. In the second place, there is TV, and social networks are in the third position. Among the TV viewers, a large group is of the oldest age, that is, 40%. Instead, only 9% and 10% of respondents in the 1st (18–25 years) and 2nd (26–40 years) groups, respectively, watch TV science news. Hence, the younger the respondents, the less they consider TV as a source of science news, and vice versa; the older the audience, the more they consider TV as a source of science content.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

From the survey results concerning the usage of social networks, it could be inferred that there is the opposite tendency: the younger the respondents are, the more they choose social networks for information about science. Thus, social media are becoming the source of science news and a competitor for the other media. The press and radio are at the bottom of the rank. Six per cent of respondents, most of them elderly people, read printed publications, as they got used to print outlets and do not change their habits.

Therefore, for obtaining information about science, the Ukrainian audience prefers Internet-based sources. However, the survey data does not support the general trend of media consumption in Ukraine: according to a research (InMind, 2018), TV is the main source of news for Ukrainians. Consequently, there is the specificity of science media consumption, which differs from the general trends of media consumption in Ukraine. Moreover, Ukrainians’ preferred sources of science news differ from those of other post-Soviet countries. In particular, the prevailing source in Russia is TV—80% of the population receives news about science from it, 32% from the Internet, 25% from newspapers and magazines and 16% from the radio (Gorodnikova et al., 2014, p. 336).

These findings can be explained by two particular facts. The 1st is that the Internet is a convenient and cheap source of information for ordinary citizen. In Ukraine, the price for Internet services is one of the lowest in the world. In the ranking of 230 countries, Ukraine takes the 4th place with the cheapest mobile Internet and the 2nd place with the lowest cost of broadband Internet. In 2018, in the country, there was the cheapest Internet services package with a price of US$3–5 per month (Internet Freedom UA, 2019).

The 2nd is the tangible ‘fatigue’ of citizens from television, as its content is far behind their needs (Onyschenko et al., 2013, p. 198). Therefore, the contingency of active TV viewers is actively shifting towards elderly people. Instead, the youth are looking for other information sources. InMind’s (2018) survey indicates that television holds leadership due to the older audience (46+). Online media are popular among young people—18–45 years, and the audience of social networks is even younger—up to 35 years. During 2015–2018, the share of Ukrainian Internet users increased by 12% and constitutes 82%.

Noticeably, according to Wellcome Global Monitor (Gallup, 2019, p. 37), access to the Internet appears to be an important factor enabling a person to seek information on science.

Regarding the question whether people are satisfied with thematic coverage of science in the media, the following answers were received: fully satisfied—17%; unsatisfied—29%; partly satisfied—54% of respondents. Another question was concerning thematic preferences of media consumers (see Figure 2). As the survey shows, the most popular topic, mostly among people of older age groups, is medicine and health protection. The theme of the newest technologies is also topical, but, on the contrary, among young respondents. Very few people are interested in energy production: most of all, it concerns the second (26–40 years) and third (41–60 years) age categories. Representatives of all groups, with the exception of the youngest respondents, wish the topic of history and historical memory to be covered. Besides, some people, mostly of middle and senior age, want information related to military defence. That is a request from the community, in particular from the participants of military conflict on the East of Ukraine and members of their families, the families of those who perished, to create new military developments and provide media with the content about it.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Another block of topics that concerns the audience is language policy and consolidation of Ukrainian society. Similar to the previous theme, respondents from the second and third age groups dominate here. Actually, this topic is not only political but also academic in Ukraine. Ukrainian scholars study such aspects of the issue as the communicative and demographic capacity of languages (Ukrainian and Russian), the influence of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian language media on the worldview formation, the role of the Ukrainian language in the history and today’s development of Ukraine’s statehood, history and current state of the Ukrainian spelling, the influence of numerous prohibitions of the Ukrainian language on its development when Ukraine was a part of the Russian Empire, features of the functioning of the Ukrainian language in the USSR, which comprised Ukraine (1917–1991), the role of the Ukrainian language in the struggle for Ukraine’s independence, and the contemporary directions of Ukrainian language development. Thus, these topics refer to several fields of social sciences and humanities in Ukraine (mainly, history, sociology, linguistics, education, public administration and demographics). In addition, among thematic priorities, respondents indicate the ones connected with the functioning of science such as financing, management, conducting research studies, achievements and problems. The survey participants also note that it is necessary to communicate about concrete scholars, both Ukrainian and foreign.

Responding to the question what features of science reporting interviewees like, people mention clear and accessible text style, simple language, interesting content and presence of non-textual elements (see Figure 3). These findings are not surprising because interesting and understandable content as well as non-textual elements such as images and video are essential characteristics of any media that attract the audience and help better understand information. Additionally, people also pay attention to the amount of material. Regarding this, the opinions were divided: 57% of respondents prefer short texts and 43% large texts. Hence, both types of materials are popular with a preference for shorter ones. The amount of the text depends on its thematic focus and the need for clarification in detail. Since science messages can often require a detailed explanation, both types of texts about science are popular.

Figure 3.

Source: The author.

An essential feature of media presentation of science issues according to the respondents (mainly the youth) is interactivity. In the comments, respondents indicated that they want to express their thoughts, create messages, form a rating of materials’ popularity, participate in forums and voting, etc. This proves that the audience wants to be active, not just a passive consumer. Interactivity is an organic feature of new media, on the one hand, and today’s youth, on the other hand. Indeed, interactivity helps change the status of the audience. This implies an increase in the possibilities of manifestation of public opinion and shows changes in the manner in which audience function. Additionally, respondents noted that it is beneficial to use the media that have social networks accounts.

Another important aspect in the study is people’s awareness of indicators of trusted science content (see Figure 4). Regarding this, most respondents recognise the following features of trusted content: objectivity, accuracy, timeliness and relevant headlines. Undoubtedly, all these characteristics are important criteria for the value of information. Not surprisingly, people want the content to truthfully reflect the objective reality, to be based on facts, and to strictly adhere to them without hiding anything. Besides, the audience considers that science reports must be accurate. Obviously, stories with errors, inaccurate data, distorted names or citations and wrong digits lead to loss of trust. In addition, in the respondents’ opinion, timeliness as well as relevant and adequate headlines are a feature of trusted messages.

Figure 4.

Source: The author.

The majority of respondents ignore references to the news sources, citations of scientific experts and presenting different views that all are signs of reliability and credibility of science reporting. Slightly less than half of respondents, mostly young and middle age people, note that any science information requires experts’ citations. Only one out of five respondents considers references to sources as a component of trusted content; the younger the respondents are, the less they pay attention to presenting the references to sources. Every fifth of respondents indicate the necessity of different viewpoints in the media messages.

Therefore, the survey data show that public is interested in science reporting. However, research studies also confirm that the current state of media coverage of science does not satisfy most Ukrainians. Finally, the survey proves that serious changes needed to be made in the media treatment of science.

Discussion: What to Pay Attention to in Order to Improve Media Coverage of Science

Contemporary social, political and cultural changes in Ukraine influence people’s views regarding science and scientists. The media as a component of science communication play a significant role in such changes. As Zelinska (2004, p. 21) notes, the purpose of communication is the adequacy, that is, the completeness of mutual understanding and the accuracy of author’s ideas entering the ‘target’ of the audience’s opportunities and interests—the closer to the ‘dozens’, the better. Thus, the development and increased responsiveness of the media to the Ukrainians’ interests and needs concerning science coverage are relevant.

In light of the information mentioned above, the following points outline what the survey findings suggest are the most important aspects which should be taken into account in order to improve media coverage of science.

There Is a Social Demand for Saturation of the Media with Larger Amount of Science Content

The obtained results show that in Ukraine, there is precisely an audience aspiring to scientific knowledge. Such a situation is not only in Ukraine; for example, de Semir (2010, p. 46) states that the majority of the EU population is interested in scientiﬁc research. Moreover, Wellcome Global Monitor (Gallup, 2019, p. 46) states that there is an appetite across the world for learning more about science. Greco (2002) attributes these findings to the following general reason: the constant presence of science in our culture, imagination and everyday life produce a general demand for scientific information. Furthermore, people in Ukraine are inclined to consider the media as a source of science content. In this regard, Weigold (2001, p. 173) says that most adults encounter science information only from media coverage. Consequently, further development of science coverage would better suit the interests and needs of Ukrainians by expanding the number of popular science outlets as well as increasing science content in non-specialised media. This would help to strengthen science communication with the general audience.

Lay Audience Wants the Broader Spectrum of Topics to Meet Different Interest Concerns

According to the survey, the thematic coverage of science issues does not meet the interests of the majority of media consumers. Laypeople prefer the following topics: medicine and health; the newest technologies; energy, history and historical memory; military defence; science functioning; reports about concrete scholars; the language policy; and consolidation of Ukrainian society.

The most popular are materials on medicine and health protection. In particular, during the survey period, the epidemic of measles broke out in Ukraine, and many respondents did not leave this topic aside. Recent Wellcome Global Monitor (Gallup, 2019, p. 36) indicates that at the global level, people are significantly more likely to seek health over science information. Also, de Semir (2010, p. 46) maintains that medicine attracts the highest degree of public interest. Indeed, the news media form major sources of information to the general public on science and health (Armon, 2016, p. 3). Communicating such topics through the media can broaden the knowledge of people as well as improve their life quality. Regarding this, I support Weigold’s (2001, p. 173) viewpoint that ‘effective communication would help adult non-scientists to become more literate about what scientists know’.

Media consumers want science content that is relevant to the actual social and political situation in the country. People would like the media to highlight the scientific themes of social significance. Citizens expect important science-led and hotly debated issues to be solved by referring to science and to be communicated to society through the media. Noteworthy is the opinion of Varych (2014b, p. 157) that the topics in the media are like litmus test, which indicates the degree of society’s development at a certain stage.

It Is Relevant to Improve the Practical Usefulness of Media Reports

As the survey shows, the scope of the audience interest goes beyond the mere announcement of the scientific events. According to Zivkovic (2010), ‘a good science story should explain what is known by now (science), what the new study brings that is new (news) and why does it matter to you (phatic discourse)’. Today, science content in Ukraine’s media is practically useless because the phatic discourse is usually absent.

However, many people want to receive useful information that can help them in their everyday life. It should be obvious for the viewers/readers/listeners in what way science is connected to their lives and how research studies and discoveries affect their comfort, safety, communication, etc. König and Jucks (2019, pp. 401–402) note that: ‘Laypeople typically do not turn to science to engage in debates about scientific findings. Instead, laypeople turn to science to make everyday decisions and get answers to personally relevant questions’. The connection between science and everyday life highlights how the lives of ordinary people will change under the influence of the research studies, or, conversely, how people can influence the research studies. Media should not diminish the value of thoughts from everyday life as the basis for science reports; for example, people’s talks, concerns and feelings about the outburst of measles can lead to communicating the ways of disease prevention and the importance of vaccination. For broad public, science is not often as important and interesting as its intersection with everyday life.

Internet Is the Most Promising Platform for Covering Science

The global network has become a platform that, by the survey results, attracts people who want to acquire science knowledge, thus contributing to the formation of the environment of consumers of science content. As Peters (2013, p. 14103) stresses, there is ‘a major structural change in the public communication system caused by the inception and proliferation of the Internet’. Considering the prevailing proportion of young Internet users and constant increasing of the Internet users in general, it is obvious that the number of adherents of the Web as a source of science information will only grow.

Nevertheless, the role of the Internet in science communication is controversial: along with the positive things, there are some disadvantages (Brossard, 2013; Rice & Giles, 2017, p. 133). Therefore, it is extremely important for online media to create a quality product with a careful selection of materials and effective presentation.

Social Networks Have Created Competition for Other News Media Sources of Science Information

Judging by the survey results, a small share of the audience interested in science currently uses social networks as sources of such content. However, taking into account the facts that this share consists of mostly young people as well as social networks development, the conclusion can be made that they are a promising way of science news disseminating. Diwakar (2016, p. 161) notes that with the advent of social media, everybody is affected by very ubiquity of new online expertise; children and young adults are among the first and keenest and passionate users of information and communication technologies. The survey findings show that the younger respondents are, the more actively they choose social networks for obtaining information about science. As Büchi (2017, p. 953) indicates, new media provide an additional platform for the dissemination of science information. Hence, the media should work in social networks in order to cover a wide audience with science issues.

Interestingly, some scholars in Ukraine have recently used social networks accounts to post about science-related issues, and thus, contribute to the generation of science content. This proves the beginning of media activity of scientists, which is a new positive phenomenon in Ukraine’s media environment. Yet, in the scientific community, there are both positive and negative reactions to media active colleagues.

A Destruction of Stereotypes Concerning the Image of Science and Scientists Is Taking Place

Ukrainians do not want to associate science with unknown closed studies of uncertain effectiveness anymore. Research studies reveal that people want to understand how Ukraine’s science functions, its essence, achievements and problems. Additionally, the desire to learn about specific scholars shows that people want to see the ‘human face’ of science. These results may also indicate that citizens expect scientists to play a more an important role in the country. Therefore, media should inform the audience how scientific activity is conducted and how scientific research is conducted. What is more, scientists’ achievements are becoming an integral part of the concept ‘motherland’ (Dolgova et al., 2019). Viewing such materials, users experience the national pride that leads to a growing sense of patriotism, the importance of which is difficult to overestimate.

Audience’s Preferred Features of Reporting Science Correspond to the Main Trends in Journalism

According to the survey, the decisive features of science covering are as follows: interesting content, clear and accessible text style, simple language, presence of images and videos and interactivity. Obviously, the audience does not want to deal with complex texts; for example, Howes and Kemp (2017, p. 96) believe that ‘modifying language is a necessary component of ensuring understanding’. This type of writing demands ‘recontextualisation’ of scientific knowledge produced in academia to suit the private lifeworlds of the audience (Molek-Kozakowska, 2017, p. 83). Media consumers also like photos, infographic, animation, etc. The point is that specificity of science content often requires additional explanations, and such a function is often performed by nonverbal tools. Estrada and Davis (2015, p. 140) suggest that images have become an important tool to communicate science. Additionally, respondents mostly of younger age groups claim the importance of interactivity. Picardi and Regina (2008) confirm that the net ‘welcomes new communication formats and overthrows the traditional circuit of information production and distribution’. Thus, it seems that the media should diversify the forms of communication and use the possibilities of interaction to the fullest.

Therefore, the survey indicates that audience has formed a sufficiently comprehensive list of science coverage features that can facilitate and contribute to perception of science. This list corresponds to main trends in journalism such as simplicity and accessibility, visualisation and interactivity. These audience’s preferences and demands in general are taken into account by the media. As Molek-Kozakowska (2017, p. 83) writes, ‘since science journalism is a marketable commodity, reporters, editors and managers stay attuned to the perceived preferences of news consumers’.

The Majority of People Tend to Trust Unreasonably the Scientific Content

As the survey shows, the audience mostly does not pay attention to citations of scientific experts, references to the news sources and presence of different viewpoints. Many respondents do not consider the above-mentioned markers as those that reflect journalistic quality criteria and affect the level of trust in media. Hence, the reliability and credibility of the science news stories are beyond the attention of numerous consumers. Such results are alarming, since a large share of the audience tends to trust unreasonably the media messages.

It is worth noting that less than half of the respondents pay attention to the experts’ citations. This may indicate that the audience thoughtlessly swallows information that is not confirmed by scientists and may be false. Many respondents do not see the need for scientific commentary in the media. Furthermore, for a significant proportion of people, it does not matter whether there is a balance of views. However, balanced information provides a comprehensive and impartial reportage representing the diverse standpoints in controversial topics. Otherwise, there is a danger that people will receive biased and one-sided information. Simultaneously, this media standard can be extremely problematic in science writing (Harmatiy, 2019, p. 22; Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009, p. 100). Nonetheless, ‘questions related to scientific controversies – an important aspect in the dynamics of the scientific process’ (Massarani et al., 2005, p. 5) – are worth presenting in the media. Additionally, the survey shows that critically small number of respondents indicate the necessity of references in science news. It must be emphasised that references to sources are obligatory (Mykhailyn, 2011, p. 124). Ukrainian legislation allows journalists not to disclose sources of information, but the use of anonymous sources is extremely limited.

Thus, according to the survey, most laypeople are indecisive and inattentive concerning the key signs of credible and reliable information. Therefore, the media must follow professional standards; references to the news sources, expert’ citations and balance of views should be integral and necessary components of science reporting.

It Is Time for Increasing Scientific and Media Literacy and Critical Thinking

The survey findings confirm that many respondents do not critically evaluate the reliability of information. Hence, there is a very serious threat—the danger of pseudoscience spread. This is precisely because of incredibility, lack or incompleteness of the evidence base in the journalistic materials, a nutrient medium for the dissemination of unreliable and creation of pseudoscientific information. Kizer (2018) suggests that: ‘In an age of media oversaturation, it has been increasingly easier for pseudoscientific information to be disseminated among the masses’. For a layperson, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate science from pseudoscience. Furthermore, there may be a danger that it will be impossible for non-scientists to distinguish between science and pseudoscience information. For the public, fake science does not differ from legal ones. One can only reveal potentially dangerous disinformation or break through the deception and misinformation if they rely on the criteria of credibility, mainly on information from reliable, reputable, scientific sources.

Thus, the media should encourage critical thinking and critical perception of science content. The format and content of science communication should be interesting and accessible, but scientifically correct and consistent with professional journalistic norms. To achieve this purpose, the media are expected to follow basic professional principles such as truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, correctness, completeness, impartiality and fairness. Cordero-Hidalgo et al. (2017, p. 503) prove that science journalism as a scientific dissemination activity can promote or suppress the challenges of scientific literacy. Quality science journalism is critically important at the time of fake science news. Kellner and Share (2007, p. 59) argue that ‘critical media literacy is crucial for participatory democracy in the twenty-first century’. Today, according to Olesk (2017), contributing a critical understanding of science is considered as the core of good science communication, including one of the main tasks of science journalism.

Ukraine’s Media Need Professional Science Journalists

The survey confirms that the need for specialised science journalists in Ukraine is urgent. Scholars (Diedushkina, 2015, p. 39; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [NASU], 2017) indicate much lack of science journalists and the necessity to train them to improve Ukraine’s media coverage of science.

Yet despite the boom in science journalism and science communication across the world (Appiah et al., 2012; Massarani, 2014), in Ukraine, science journalism is underdeveloped. Ukraine needs to provide the media sphere with skilled science journalism professionals who will be able to ensure quality content on science. This is a very difficult task because, as Zivkovic (2010) emphasises, ‘science is hard. It takes years to learn enough to be able to report it well’. Ukraine needs to develop appropriate educational programmes to create a critical mass of science journalists to close the gap. The introduction of science journalism specialisation at universities is topical. Ukraine needs journalists who specialise in science issues and are able to verbalise public–academia communication, prevent the spread of pseudoscience, support professional norms and provide quality media content.

Conclusions

Social and political changes in Ukraine are gradually taking place, and, simultaneously, the social role of science and science communication is changing as well. Media coverage of science plays a significant role in such changes. Mass media is an important source of science content for people and the main translator of social stereotypes concerning the image of science and scientists in society. Effective science communication has the potential to influence social understanding on how to overcome challenges, make the country prosperous and increase the quality of life of the Ukrainian population. As such, the improvement of science coverage in Ukraine would promote the national, cultural, scientific and technological development of the country. Thus, Ukraine’s media should increase distributing science content and meet certain public expectations, interests and needs, as well as motivate citizens to enhance critical thinking. The national survey (Internews, 2018) indicated that Ukrainians began to trust the media more. The trend of constant decline of trust, which has been recently observed, has changed, and Ukrainians have started consuming media to a greater extent. This context is undoubtedly favourable for the improvement of science communication via the media and development of science journalism in Ukraine.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Appiah

, Gastel

, Burdine

J. N.

, & Russell

L. H.

(2012). The future of science journalism in Ghana: evidence-based perspectives. Journal of Science Communication, 11(01) C04. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/11/01/Jcom1101%282012%29C01/Jcom1101%282012%29C04

Armon

(2016). Expert positions and scientific contexts: Storying research in the news media. Discourse & Communication, 10(1), 3–21.

Ashwell

D. J.

(2016). The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 379–393.

Brossard

(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14096–14101.

Büchi

(2017). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953–968.

Cassany

, Cortinas

, & Elduque

(2018). Communicating science: The profile of science journalists in Spain. Comunicar, 55, 9–17.

Cordero-Hidalgo

, Tarango

, Contreras

, & Romo-González

(2017). The challenges of scientific journalism according to Mexican university professors, newspaper directors and heads of research. Information and Learning Sciences, 118(9/10), 503–517.

de Semir

(2010). Science communication & science journalism. Media for science forum. Pompeu Fabra University.

Dickson

(2005). The case for a ‘deficit model’ of science communication. SciDev.Net. https://www.scidev.net/global/communication/editorials/the-case-for-a-deficit-model-of-science-communic.html

10.

Diedushkina

(2015). Populiaryzatsiia nauky v suchasnomu ukrainskomu internet-prostori [Science Popularization in Modern Ukrainian Internet Space]. Printing Horizon, 1(4), 39–47.

11.

Diwakar

(2016). ‘It’s complicated’: The construction of Indian middle-class teens in social media. Journal of Creative Communications, 11(2), 161–182.

12.

Dolgova

, Orekhova

, & Badelina

(2019). Image of science in social and political mass media of Russia. Revista Espacios, 40(10). http://www.revistaespacios.com/a19v40n10/19401026.html

13.

Dunwoody

(2007). United States: Focus on the audience. In Bauer

M. W.

& Bucchi

(Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 241–245). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

14.

Edwards

J. E.

, Thomas

M. D.

, Rosenfeld

, & Booth-Kewley

(1997). How to conduct organizational surveys: A step-by-step guide. SAGE Publications.

15.

Estrada

F. C.

, & Davis

L. S.

(2015). Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication, 37(1), 140–148.

16.

Filonenko

(2013). Naukovo-populiarna periodyka Ukrainy: problemy formuvannia audytorii [Ukrainian Popular Science Periodicals: The Problems of the Audience Formation]. Collection of Papers of the Research Institute of the Press Studies, 3, 403–413.

17.

Gallup (2019). Wellcome global monitor—First wave findings. https://wellcome.ac.uk/what-we-do/reports

18.

Gorodnikova

, Gokhberg

, & Kuznetsova

(2014). Science’s indicators: 2014. The Higher School of Economics.

19.

Greco

(2002). When science hits the headlines… Journal of Science Communication, 1(3). https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/jcom0103%282002%29E.pdf

20.

Harmatiy

(2019). Kontroversijni temy yak riznovyd konfliktu v naukovij zhurnalistytsi [Controversial Themes as a Conflict Variation in Science Journalism]. Bulletin of Lviv Polytechnic National University. Series: Journalistic Sciences, 3, 22–28.

21.

Howes

L. M.

, & Kemp

(2017). Discord in the communication of forensic science: Can the science of language help foster shared understanding? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 96–111.

22.

InMind (2018). Media consumption survey in Ukraine 2018. https://internews.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-MediaConsumSurvey_eng_FIN.pdf

23.

Internet Freedom UA (2019). Ukraina perebuvaie v p’iatirtsi krain z najdeshevshym mobil’nym internetom [Ukraine Is in the Top Five Countries with the Cheapest Mobile Internet in the World]. https://netfreedom.org.ua/article/ukrayina-perebuvaye-v-pyatirci-krayin-z-najdeshevshim-u-sviti-mobilnim-internetom

24.

Internews (2018). Trust in media on the rise in Ukraine—A new USAID-Internews media consumption survey says. https://internews.in.ua/news/trust-in-media-on-the-rise-in-ukraine-a-new-usaid-internews-media-consumption-survey-says/

25.

Irwin

(2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.

26.

Joubert

(2018). Country-specific factors that compel South African scientists to engage with public audiences. Journal of Science Communication, 17(4), CN04. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/17/04/JCOM_1704_2018_C01/JCOM_1704_2018_C04

27.

Kellner

, & Share

(2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 59–69.

28.

Kizer

(2018). Not a scientist: How politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science. Journal of Science Communication, 17(1) R04. https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1701_2018_R04.pdf

29.

König

, & Jucks

(2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416.

30.

Маlitsky

(2018). Natsional’na akademiya nauk Ukrayny: fenomen derzhavnosti ta tvorets’ novoho znannya [The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: The Phenomenon of Statehood and the Creator of New Knowledge]. Science and Science of Science, 4(102), 3–32.

31.

Manzini

(2003). Effective communication of science in a culturally diverse society. Science Communication, 25(2), 191–197.

32.

Massarani

(2014). Science communication in Latin America: What is going on? Science Museum Group Journal. http://journal.sciencemuseum.ac.uk/browse/issue-02/science-communication-in-latin-america/

33.

Massarani

, Buys

, Amorim

L. H.

, & Veneu

(2005). Science journalism in Latin America: A case study of seven newspapers in the region. Journal of Science Communication, 4(3). https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/jcom0403%282005%29A02.pdf

34.

Molek-Kozakowska

(2017). Communicating environmental science beyond academia: Stylistic patterns of newsworthiness in popular science journalism. Discourse & Communication, 11(1), 69–88.

35.

Mooney

, & Kirshenbaum

(2009). Unscientific America: How science illiteracy threatens our future. Basic Books.

36.

Mykhailyn

(2011). Basics of journalism. Centre for Educational Literature.

37.

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (2017). Pres-konferentsiia ‘Nauka i media’ (‘Science and Media’ Press conference). http://www.nas.gov.ua/UA/Messages/news/Pages/View.aspx?MessageID=2955

38.

Nguyen

, & Tran

(2019). Science journalism for development in the Global South: A systematic literature review of issues and challenges. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 973–990.

39.

Olesk

(2017). Beyond propaganda: Science coverage in Soviet Estonian media. Journal of Science Communication, 16(3), A06. https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/16/03/JCOM_1603_2017_A06

40.

Onyschenko

, Horovyj

, & Popyk

(2013). Sotsial’ni merezhi iak chynnyk rozvytku hromadians’koho suspil’stva (Social Networks as a Factor of Civil Society Development). Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.

41.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14102–14109.

42.

Petrushka

(2017). Prohnostychna model’ nosiiv naukovo-populiarnoho kontentu iak vtilennia ikhnikh funktsional’nykh kharakterystyk (The Predictive Model of Medium of Popular Science Content as Implementation of Its Functional Features). Dnipropetrovsk National University.

43.

Picardi

, & Regina

(2008). Science via podcast. Journal of Science Communication, 7(2). https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/Jcom0702%282008%29C05.pdf

44.

Rice

R. E.

, & Giles

(2017). The contexts and dynamics of science communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 127–139.

45.

Scharrer

, Rupieper

, Stadtler

, & Bromme

(2016). When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 1003–1018.

46.

Schiermeier

(2019). Ukraine’s science revolution stumbles five years on. Nature, 566(7743), 162–163.

47.

Szu

, Osborne

, & Patterson

A. D.

(2017). Factual accuracy and the cultural context of science in popular media: Perspectives of media makers, middle school students, and university students on an entertainment television program. Public Understanding of Science, 26(5), 596–611.

48.

Varych

(2014a). Naukovo-populiarna zhurnalistyka iak metod komunikatsii u sotsiokul’turnomu prostori (Popular Scientific Journalism as a Method of Communication in Socio-cultural Space). Obraz, 15, 5–13.

49.

Varych

(2014b). Stattia iak zhanr naukovo-populiarnoi zhurnalistyky: tendentsii i perspektyvy rozvytku (The Article as a Genre of Popular Scientific Journalism: Trends and Prospects of Development). Institute of Journalism Scientific Notes, 55, 154–158.

50.

Weigold

M. F.

(2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164–193.

51.

Zelinska

(2004). Nova model’ naukovoi komunikatsii i dyskurs (The New Model of Academic Communication and Discourse). Style and Text, 4, 19–27.

52.

Zivkovic

(2010). The line between science and journalism is getting blurry…. Again. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-line-between-science-and-journalism-is-getting-blurry-again/