Effects of narrative evidence in science news coverage of genomic research

这个项目调查了记者用来为科学新闻中的科学主张提供证据的策略，以及这种证据做法最终如何影响受众。具体地说，我们认为叙事是一种证据实践，因为它们允许对复杂的科学问题有一个直观的理解。在这个项目的第一阶段，我们检查了德国关于基因组研究的平面和电视新闻报道，以寻找内容分析中的证据实践。结果显示，报道的几乎一半的科学主张都伴随着叙述。此外，叙述并不是孤立的，而是经常与其他证据做法(即提及当局或数据)结合在一起。叙事被用来支持科学主张，但很少用来反驳它们。一般说来，科学报道中的叙述具有丰富的叙事性(或高叙事性)。出现了三种类型的叙事：(1)研究过程和研究过程，(2)进行研究的科学家和(3)从研究中受益或受到研究影响的人的故事。该项目的第二阶段是由科学新闻报道中的这种不同的叙事观点推动的。根据叙事加工和说服理论，我们假设不同类型的故事对观众的影响是不同的。此外，我们预计叙事性(故事情节、结构和语言的阐述方式)将发挥重要作用。第二阶段的目标是探索叙事的这种不同效果。三个连续的横截面样本实验考察了叙述对回忆、对科学标准的理解以及研究和研究人员的可信度的影响。我们将系统地研究这三种类型的叙事和较低或较高的叙事性水平的效果。叙事介入--沉浸在故事中的主观体验--起着中心中介的作用。在第一阶段的内容分析中分析了科学证据的不稳定和再稳定力量之间的动态之后，我们考虑了这种相互作用并对其进行了仔细的测试：第二阶段具体考察了科学叙事的稳定效果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，该项目探索了一种与不同证据文化之间的沟通和谈判相关的沟通模式。在此过程中，该项目通过提供对个人解释、了解和接受科学证据的方式的深入研究，支持了研究小组的中心原则。该项目将通过开发对媒体叙事的差异化理论描述，并测试特定的效果机制，为叙事说服和科学传播领域做出贡献。

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.