Science communicators perceive that their audiences primarily value information that is directly relevant to themselves, their health, and entertainment. They aim to tap into these self-oriented values when selecting stories by emphasizing novel medical implications or unexpected findings. Some also try to activate more self-transcendent values like curiosity and understanding through compelling storytelling. Religion can present an obstacle if findings contradict spiritual beliefs. While most science topics require appealing to security or hedonism, engaging storytelling seeks to foster broader interest in how science illuminates human existence.

1. How perceptions of audience values
influence science communication
values and practices
Expert interviews with science communicators
By Paige Brown, Rosanne Scholl

2. The Intersection of Value Systems
Popular science communicators are a
key link between scientists and publics
Tension between news values, science
values, and (assumed) audience values

3. But first: Who are Science Communicators?
Individuals who communicate science primarily to lay
audiences
Non-fiction book authors
News and magazine editors
Journalists
University PR writers who write about
science in public forums (blogs, etc.)
Science bloggers

4. What are Values?
Scientific Values:
empiricism, replication
News Values:
newsworthiness
“The only causal explanation for
the existence of news values is
journalists’ notions of audience
interest” (Donsbach, 2004)
Fundamental Human Values
Schwartz, S.H. (1992)
“desirable transsituational goals, varying
in importance, that serve as guiding
principles in the life of a person or other
social entity” (Schwartz 1994)
Schwartz’ Value Paradigm

5. Where do
science communication
&
news values
fit in?
http://valuesandframes.org/handbook/2-how-values-work/

6. This Study
How do popular science communicators reflect
perceived interests and values of their audiences when
selecting and telling stories about science?
Assumptions: Science communicators cater to perceived
reader values while upholding their own values as
scientists, journalists, educators, etc.

7. Methods
In-person, in-depth elite interviews with a total of 14
science communicators in North Carolina
Broad recruitment based on active practice in the
communication of science to primarily lay audiences,
through blogs, newspapers, books and other digital
science news sites

8. Methods
Semi-structured interviews (45–60 minutes) using
“guided introspection” interview protocol (Dexter,
2006)
Inductive and grounded theory coding methods,
allowing for emergent themes and coding according to
Schwartz’s universal human value typology (ATLAS.ti
version 7.0.92)

9. News Values: Relevance & Novelty
Direct relevance to the reader, especially health or medical
implications of research findings, is top priority. Novelty and
unexpectedness make a good story in the absence of direct
relevance. If none of these apply, curiosity is the main hook.
“I mean, most people want to know, how is this going to directly impact my life, you
know, and if you’re writing things for newspapers, or about health, or whatever, yeah,
you can kind of see that a little bit more clearly. Um, but especially when it’s stuff like
particle physics, or, you know, origins of the universe, or things like that, you know, it’s
like yeah, there’s not really any immediate connection, but I think that people that read
science are curious about that kind of stuff just for its own sake. So, um, in some ways
just the fact that it’s something new is more of what you’re trying to convey, rather than
immediate personal connection to, you know, subatomic particles (laughs).”
#13, Female, Editor, Print

10. Perceptions of audience values
Dominant themes: “People care about themselves”, “We want
to be entertained”, “People that read science are curious”

11. Obstacles in Science Communication
Minor theme: Religion and spiritual values
5 (of 14) science communicators mentioned respect for
tradition and spiritual human values as obstacles in their
science communication work:
“there are people that think that evolution is not real, and that everything
right now is exactly the way God made it, initially, and that is going to affect
the way they view anything we write about paleontology, or bacteria, or
human development.” #1, Male, PIO
“these questions of, you know, who are we? Where did we come from? What
are we doing? […] science is one way of answering those questions… religion
is another way” #4, Female, Science PR Writer

13. “Cool” science (sex, dinosaurs) can feed into the human values
of stimulation (excitement)
Most science topics require tapping into self-oriented security
(health, etc.) or hedonism values (happiness, comfort in life,
entertainment
Audiences tend toward the self-interested end of Schwartz’s
human value spectrum (power, security & hedonism)
But some communicators work hard to activate self-
transcendent values (universalism, self-direction) in their
readers through storytelling….
Our science communicators believe…

14. Activating self-transcendent values
“I’m assuming everybody’s interested in everything, and they
should be, and if they’re not, I’m so entertaining as a storyteller
that I’m going to get them interested in it.” #11, Male, Author
[Getting people to ask themselves these questions…] “why are
we here, where did we come from, what are the origins of, of
everything we see around us” #4, Female, Science PR Writer

15. Thank you!
Questions?
Please access our data and comment on our paper
at F1000Research.com:
http://f1000research.com/articles/3-128/v1