The document discusses the role of blogging as a tool for science communication, highlighting its potential to democratize access to scientific information and bridge gaps between researchers and the public. It addresses challenges that researchers face in conveying their work effectively, including barriers in traditional media and the need for improved communication skills. Blogging is presented as a more accessible and inclusive platform for sharing knowledge, allowing diverse perspectives and facilitating ongoing discussions in a more informal manner.

1. How to blog the research world out of the communication shadow –the science blog as a democratictool and door openerVitenskapog massemedier, Oslo, Mars 24, 2010Malin Sandström, KTH, SwedenEmail: msandstrom@gmail.comtwitter: @msandstrBlog: vetenskapsnytt.blogspot.com (in Swedish)

2. My different ’hats’Researcher/PhD student (Aug 2004 –Mar 2010)computationalneuroscienceatKTHCommunications/PR (pt since June 2009)neuroinformatics; incf.orgScience blogger(sinceMarch2005)vetenskapsnytt.blogspot.comScience journalist (pt/freelance since2006)e.g. matmolekyler.taffel.se

3. SynopsisIntroductionProblem descriptionThe challenge in the tension between high visibility and high probabilityHow many do I reach with blogging, and do I reach the ones I wish to inform?Special challenges and possibilities in science communication on the webHow to work daily with science communicationMy experiences so far

4. The problem in a nutshellMore researchers want to communicate, compared to the ones who manage to reach out; especially young researchers*Media has little space and narrow interestsResearchers have little time and often lack training in communicationsResearchers do not want to communicateResearchers are afraid of journalists*source: Communicators at several different universities, several of my blog colleagues& many of my colleagues – I tend to ask peaople about this…

5. The problem in a nutshellMore researchers want to communicate, compared to the ones who manage to reach out; especially young researchers*Media has little space and narrow interestsResearchers have little time and often lack training in communicationsResearchers do not want to communicateResearchers are afraid of journalists*source: Communicators at several different universities, several of my blog colleagues& many of my colleagues – I tend to ask peaople about this…

6. Academia has a traditional view of communicating science to the publicFew channelsSingle-track communication: the expert speaks, the public listensThe public lacks knowledge about science (in form of scientific facts)Keyword: lackBut this model is just not true anymore! we are drowning in ‘facts’However, science has not become easier to understand, despite this fact deluge

7. The lack is not in ”facts”The public lacks access to knowledgeaboutContextCommunication modesDebatesThoughtpatternsWithoutthese, the publicized ’facts’ are veryhard to evaluateScience is an ongoingdiscussionUsuallyinaccessible to non-researchers (’paywalls’,expensiveconferences, language&terminology)in academia

8. The research process in partsMost of theminvisible and/or inaccessible to the publicExperimentDataAnalysisResults&ConclusionDiscussion&CriticismRe-evaluationQuestionNew question...

9. Which research gets published?Generally: Nature, Science, PNASMedicin: JAMA, NEJM, LancetOther pressreleasesReady-written news agency textsRewites from ”big media” (BBC, New Scientist...)Twocommoncategories: medicin &climate (treatedseriously) ’cool stuff’ (space, genderdifferences,…)”press packs”96% of the Swedish public thinks that medicineis a highlyscientificsubject [Vetenskap & Allmänhet, 2007]

10. Barriers for access to the publicBecome a senior scientist71% of lecturer/doctorates vs 19% of professors never solicited by journalists [F. Crettaz von Roten, University of Lausanne, PCST-10 25/6]Get published in one of the big three/six

11. Be included in that week’s ”presspack”

12. Pass the editors

13. Get good contact with the reporter

14. Pass the editor again

15. Not collide with anything ’more newsworthy’

16. Get read/listened toVIA THE NEWSYou can end up spending half a day for two ’soundbites’ of ~15 words each.Media is a highly inefficient medium for scientists to have contact with the public

17. Barriers for access to scienceNo or fewspecialized media for interesting area (i.e., no middleground)No methodology for infosearchingExpensivesubscriptionsLack of proficiency in specialist English (especially for older generation Swedes/Norwegians)Incomprehensible specialist vocabulary and conventionsLittle backgroundknowledge / contextNo personal contacts with scientistsFOR THE PUBLIC

18. The blog lowers the barriersFor the researcher:Seniority or publications not necessaryNo doorkeepers, own controlMaking information freely accessible costs nothing (compared to ‘open access’fees of~ $1000)For the public:Free to readEasier to reach, search for and collect informationPersonal access to researchers

19. The blog as a sciencecommunication platformQuick (limit: own working time)No space, subject or language limits No misquotation or unexpected ’spin’FormalityNeutrality not enforcedObjectivityUnclear reliabilityQuestionable authority (if unknown)Personal trust (if known)

20. Whatdo I mean by saying that blogging is ’democratic’?Researchers who want to communicate are not forced to go via the mediaResearchers gaindirect access to the publicThe public gaindirect access to the researchersBloggingallowsmakingseveral different viewpointsheard/seen/readBloggingcan make the scientificdiscussionmore visible, and enable the public to take part in itIn non-English-speakingcountries, science blogscansignificantlyincrease the access to own-language popular science material

21. Why the web as a channel?Free, simple, time effective, enduringYou can choose yourself and make it personal whenever you have timeSimpler to build bridges between mass media level and researcher level, by‘sneaking in’ background material via linksGive a deeper background to hot news and debatesBroaden the range of materials available for interested parties (Google)Deeper coverageCan choose other subjectsCan build language bridges; write simply in Swedish/Norwegian about findings/news reported in EnglishThat is where the audience is“young people” (i.e. everyone beolow 35 or so)journalists

22. Who do I reach via the blog?Other researchersWho blogWho ‘just’ read and discussOther‘stakeholders’, e.g. special interest associationsSchool kids & studentsPrimarily via search hits for school projectsThe interested publicJournalistsOften ‘silent’ readers, few comentsBut: they give a very large ‘secondary’ visibility

23. How many do I reach via the blog?Often: it varies from post to postTime perspective: long-term visibility vs daily statisticsEverybody googles. Even journalists.RandomnessA debate can grow very quicklyYou never know who is listeningSnowball effectsOne assignment often leads to more

24. ConflictsTerminology: correctness – readabilityAngle: correctness – readability and visibilityAngle, subject: visibility – neutrality and credibilitySubject: for fun – usefulnes to societySubject: time – usefulnessScope: time – ambition…Not worse to navigate these conflicts than to navigate other everyday conflicts

25. EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!RESEARCHER SOLD HER SOULCOLLEAGUE: SHE WAS TRYING TO GET MORE BLOG READERS“I BITTERLY REGRET IT”

26. EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!RESEARCHER SOLD HER SOULCOLLEAGUE: SHE WAS TRYING TO GET MORE BLOG READERS“I BITTERLY REGRET IT”Will researchers lose their ethical/moral compass when confronted by the lure of publicity? think this is an unfounded fear. Intriguing that I’ve mostly seen this fearamong journalists…

27. Visibility vs credibilityGood & credible visibilitySum it up in the headline & put the important stuff firstUse an accessible and personal languageFind a well delimited nicheLeave clever comments in other places… less good/credible visibilityCompetitions and lotteriesSensationalist, misleading headlinesPersonal attacksCommentary’spam’

28. How work with science communication day-to-day?Read! Newspapers, news realeases, research articles, other blogs …Learn what is seen as interestingFind holes in the reporting that you can fillKnow when there is an ongoing deabte to contribute toCommunicators can help with newswatch and tipoffsWrite! Practice makes perfectBetter little and oftenRead comments (feedback) and take it to heartCommunicators can help with media- and language training, commetns and feedback!

29. How work with science communication day-to-day?Network! Speak to colleagues, read other blogsBuild networks by commentingGet more news- and debate tipsKnow when there is a debate to contribute toCommunicators can help with tips and “marketing”Take a break! When it gets to demanding or stressfulLook at it as amarathon run – you cannot always sprintGet guestbloggers or start/join a group blogGet a microblog, e.g. TwitterCommunicators can help with editorial services and framework for a group blog

30. My 4 first blog yearsInterviewsNewspapers & magazinesRadioSolicitationsJobs, committees, …Writing articlesGiving talksTaking part in (live) debatesProject/grant applicationOwn investment: ~1000 h/20wLike a one-term course at university!This experience is likely what got me my current/future job

31. Findings so farThere is a lot of ’invisible’ discussion on science and research (forums, blogs, email…)People like to cite ’authorities’, includingbloggers/blog postsPeople don’thesitate to discuss with or question researchers and theirreasoning”Filling in” the media coverage with details on experiements, giving a context, discussingvalidity is oftenappreciatedcomplexity is not bad, whentreatedcarefullyResearchers are ofteninterested in otherfieldsthantheirown (and cangivevaluablecontributions in the commentfield)