Effects of narrative evidence in science news coverage of genomic research

叙事证据对基因组研究科学新闻报道的影响

• 批准号: 334935204
• 负责人: Professorin Dr. Helena Bilandzic, Ph.D.
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Institut für Medien, Wissen und Kommunikation (imwk)
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Units
• 资助国家: 德国
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/334935204?language=en
• 关键词: Effects; narrative; evidence; science; news

This project investigates the strategies used by journalists to provide evidence for scientific claims in science news and how such evidencing practices ultimately affect the audience. Specifically, we consider narratives as evidencing practices as they allow an intuitive understanding of complex scientific issues.In the first phase of this project, print and televised German news reporting of genomic research were examined for evidencing practices in a content analysis. Results show that almost half of the scientific claims reported are accompanied by narratives. In addition, narratives do not stand alone, but are most often combined with other evidencing practices (i.e. references to authorities or data). Narratives are used to support scientific claims and only rarely to contradict them. Generally, the narratives found in science coverage have a rich narrative quality (or high level of narrativity). Three types of narratives have emerged: stories of (1) the research process and the course of the study, (2) scientists conducting the research and (3) people benefitting from the research or being affected by it.The second phase of the project is driven by this differentiated view of narratives in science news coverage. Following theories of narrative processing and persuasion, we assume that different types of stories have different effects on audiences. Also, we expect that narrativity (the way in which the plot, the structure and the language of a story are elaborated) plays a significant role. The goal of the second phase is to explore such differential effects of narratives. Three consecutive experiments with cross-sectional samples investigate the effects of narratives on recall, understanding of scientific criteria, and the credibility of studies and researchers. We will systematically investigate the effects of the three types of narratives and of lower or higher levels of narrativity. Narrative engagement – the subjective experience of being immersed in a story – serves as a central mediator.After having analyzed the dynamics between destabilizing and restabilizing forces on scientific evidence in the content analysis of phase one, we consider this interaction and submit it to a careful test: the second phase specifically investigates the conditions under which stabilizing effects of science narratives actually occur on an individual level. By considering the effects of different narratives of science on audiences, this project explores a mode of communication that is relevant for communicating and negotiating between different cultures of evidencing. In doing so, the project supports a central tenet of the research group by providing insigh t into the way in which individuals interpret, learn about and accept scientific evidence.The project will contribute to the fields of narrative persuasion and science communication by developing a differentiated theoretical account of media narratives, and testing specific mechanisms of effects.

该项目调查了记者为科学新闻中的科学主张提供证据所使用的策略，以及这种证据实践最终如何影响受众。 具体来说，我们认为叙事作为证据的做法，因为它们可以让一个直观的理解复杂的科学issues.In这个项目的第一阶段，印刷和电视德国的基因组研究的新闻报道进行了检查，在内容分析的证据实践。结果显示，几乎一半的科学声明都附有叙述。此外，叙述并不是孤立的，而往往与其他证据做法（即提及当局或数据）结合在一起。叙事被用来支持科学主张，很少反驳它们。一般来说，科学报道中的叙述具有丰富的叙述质量（或高水平的叙述性）。出现了三种类型的叙述：（1）研究过程和研究过程的故事，（2）进行研究的科学家的故事和（3）从研究中受益或受其影响的人的故事。该项目的第二阶段是由这种差异化的科学新闻报道叙述观点驱动的。根据叙事处理和说服理论，我们假设不同类型的故事对观众有不同的影响。此外，我们认为叙事性（故事情节、结构和语言的阐述方式）发挥着重要作用。第二阶段的目标是探索叙事的这种差异效应。三个连续的实验与横截面样本调查的影响，叙述回忆，理解科学标准，研究和研究人员的可信度。我们将系统地研究这三种类型的叙事和较低或较高水平的叙事的影响。叙事参与--沉浸在故事中的主观体验--是一个中心中介。在第一阶段的内容分析中，我们分析了科学证据上不稳定力量和恢复稳定力量之间的动态关系，然后考虑这种相互作用，并对其进行仔细的测试：第二阶段具体考察了科学叙事的稳定效应在个体层面上实际发生的条件。通过考虑不同的科学叙事对受众的影响，该项目探索了一种沟通模式，这种模式与不同证据文化之间的沟通和谈判有关。该项目通过深入研究个人解释、学习和接受科学证据的方式来支持研究小组的核心宗旨。该项目将通过发展媒体叙事的差异化理论解释和测试特定的影响机制来促进叙事说服和科学传播领域。