1. The document discusses The Conversation, an online platform that amplifies public intellectual contributions from scientists through journalism-as-a-service. 2. The Conversation allows scientists to propose and draft their own articles, which are then developed and edited by journalists before publication. 3. It aims to provide scientists a widely accessible platform to engage in public debates and discussions about their research while also tracking the reach and impact of their contributions.

1. Journalism-as-a-Service: Amplifying
Public Intellectual Contributions through The Conversation
Prof. Axel Bruns, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Prof. Folker Hanusch, Department of Communication, University of Vienna
a.bruns @ qut edu.au / folker.hanusch @ univie.ac.at
@snurb_dot_info / @fhanusch

2. Science Communication Online
• Science journalism:
– Online equivalents of conventional media
– ‘Born digital’ publications following conventional frameworks
 Journalist-initiated topic selection and framing, large reach, good content quality
• DIY science communication:
– Institutional and project Websites
– Group and individual blogs run by scientists
– Open access journals
 Original texts, self-initiated exchange between researchers, rarely beyond in-group
• Social media:
– Researchers, journalists, industry, interested laypeople
– Potential to connect with international networks
 Self-initiated topic selection, often limited reach, ‘preaching to the converted’

3. What Would Be Desirable Here?
• An ideal picture of science communication:
– Coverage initiated by scientists, and
– Direct participation by scientists in content development – but also
– Largest possible reach across mass and niche media, and
– Style of communication accessible to laypeople
• Is this possible?
– In research:
• Science communication as a distraction from research process
• Limited communication training for researchers, limited institutional recognition
• Fear of populist attacks in controversial fields
– In journalism:
• International ‘crisis of journalism’
• Job cuts particularly in specialty fields such as journalism
• Mass media agendas strongly influenced by the short-term topics

4. Amplifier Platforms for Science
• ‘Disruptive Innovation’ trends in various industries:
– Spotify, Netflix, cloud computing, Uber, … – ‘everything-as-a-service’
 Journalism-as-a-service – for scientists?
• ‘Crisis’ of journalism presents opportunities for new models:
– Innovative publishing structures, especially online
– Experiments with textual formats and styles
– Breakdown of traditional barriers between journalists and non-journalists
– Partnerships with conventional mass media
– Targetted integration with social media
 Amplifier platforms like The Conversation

7. The Conversation
• Key elements:
– Content selection through crowdsourcing:
• Scientists propose new articles themselves, and submit raw drafts
• Text development by journalistic editors, for approval by scientists
– Journalism-as-a-service:
• Scientific research, professional editing by journalists
• Publication on centralised, widely known platform
– Designed for shareability:
• Consistent use of Creative Commons licences
• Links to content shared via social media
– Evaluation of reach and impact:
• Real-time dashboards for researchers and institutions
• Tracking of sharing and republication in social and mass media

11. Project History
• How does such a platform emerge?
– Journalism + Research = Conversation:
• Founded by Andrew Jaspan, former editor of The Age (Melbourne)
• Financially supported by a consortium of Australian universities
• Editorial team partly housed at Australian universities
• Original URL: theconversation.edu.au, due to university connections
– Supportive environment:
• Political demands for societal relevance of (funded) research
• Internal incentives for researcher participation at universities
• Market gap due to very limited media diversity in Australia
– Clearly demonstrable successes:
• Detailed information on user numbers and content dissemination
• Expansion into UK, US, France, southern Africa, Canada, …

12. Tweets linking to The Conversation, compared to other Australian news sites (Jan./Feb. 2016)

13. Proactive Science Communication
• Why bother?
– Science and its contribution to society:
• Scientists have a duty to engage in public debates
• Research institutions should encourage and reward such contributions
• Particularly effective means of engagement should be preferred
– International trends towards the evaluation of such effects:
• E.g. RAE, REF (UK), RQF, ERA (Australia), …
• Controversial metrics for ‘impact’, ‘excellence’, ‘public value’
• Push towards a ‘public value test’ for publicly-funded research activities
 Better to actively contribute to the creation and tracking of such metrics
than to be passively subjected to them…

14. @snurb_dot_info
@fhanusch
@socialmediaQUT – http://socialmedia.qut.edu.au/
@qutdmrc – https://www.qut.edu.au/research/dmrc
This research is funded by the Australian Research Council through Future Fellowship grant FT130100703, LIEF
LE140100148, Discovery DP160101211 and Linkage LP160100205.