Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-06-05DOI: 10.1177/09636625251337709
Justin T Schröder, Lars Guenther
Intermediaries such as (digital) media use trust cues in their content, that is, information and linguistic markers that present public audiences reasons for trusting scientists, scientific organizations, and the science system. Trust cues refer to dimensions of trust in science such as expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and dialogue. Because digital media environments are expected to be heterogeneous in content, the sources of trust cues, characteristics of objects of trust in science (e.g. the gender of scientists), and their impact on public trust in science may vary. In our quantitative content analysis, we identified trust cues across several sources of scientific information (n = 906) and examined their heterogeneity in digital media environments. Our results reveal journalism as the most important source for trust cues and that scientists are the most prevalent object of trust-with female scientists being underrepresented. Differences across (digital) media imply varying impacts on public trust in science.
{"title":"Mediating trust in content about science: Assessing trust cues in digital media environments.","authors":"Justin T Schröder, Lars Guenther","doi":"10.1177/09636625251337709","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251337709","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intermediaries such as (digital) media use trust cues in their content, that is, information and linguistic markers that present public audiences reasons for trusting scientists, scientific organizations, and the science system. <i>Trust cues</i> refer to dimensions of trust in science such as expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and dialogue. Because digital media environments are expected to be heterogeneous in content, the sources of trust cues, characteristics of objects of trust in science (e.g. the gender of scientists), and their impact on public trust in science may vary. In our quantitative content analysis, we identified trust cues across several sources of scientific information (<i>n</i> = 906) and examined their heterogeneity in digital media environments. Our results reveal journalism as the most important source for trust cues and that scientists are the most prevalent object of trust-with female scientists being underrepresented. Differences across (digital) media imply varying impacts on public trust in science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1046-1065"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535621/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144227279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-09DOI: 10.1177/09636625251333316
Henry G W Dixson, Catherine Waldby, Sujatha Raman, Adrian Mackenzie, Lucy Carter
Advanced bioengineering is often described as a transformative field with the potential to reshape aspects of society and environments. However, it remains largely unfamiliar to publics, compounded by its highly abstract and complex technical details. Increasingly, there have been calls for public engagement that grounds the field in concrete, real-world uses. Furthermore, there have been calls to move beyond the limits of archetypal or intrinsic concerns by encouraging people to flesh out and justify their support or lack thereof. This national focus group study investigated views across Australia regarding four novel applications. By presenting these technologies in contextualised scenarios incorporating characters with a range of perspectives, it answers the call for greater frame awareness. We conclude that publics are more than capable of weighing and negotiating between multiple frames at once, providing their own in order to justify whether to accept or reject one of the technologies.
{"title":"Tragic Flaws and Practical Wisdom: Public reasoning behind preferences for different genetic technologies.","authors":"Henry G W Dixson, Catherine Waldby, Sujatha Raman, Adrian Mackenzie, Lucy Carter","doi":"10.1177/09636625251333316","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251333316","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advanced bioengineering is often described as a transformative field with the potential to reshape aspects of society and environments. However, it remains largely unfamiliar to publics, compounded by its highly abstract and complex technical details. Increasingly, there have been calls for public engagement that grounds the field in concrete, real-world uses. Furthermore, there have been calls to move beyond the limits of archetypal or intrinsic concerns by encouraging people to flesh out and justify their support or lack thereof. This national focus group study investigated views across Australia regarding four novel applications. By presenting these technologies in contextualised scenarios incorporating characters with a range of perspectives, it answers the call for greater frame awareness. We conclude that publics are more than capable of weighing and negotiating between multiple frames at once, providing their own in order to justify whether to accept or reject one of the technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1009-1027"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535613/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143988293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-22DOI: 10.1177/09636625251328854
Daniel Silva Luna, Irene Broer, Helena Bilandzic, Monika Taddicken, Björn W Schuller, Martin Bürger
The rapid advancement of communicative artificial intelligence (ComAI) is profoundly impacting science communication, offering new opportunities for easier and more audience-oriented communication. However, it also poses several challenges for its practice. Based on a narrative review of literature on science communication and ComAI quality, this article develops a framework of quality principles for science communication with ComAI. The framework identifies the quality dimensions of scientific integrity, human-centricity, ethical responsiveness, inclusive impact, and governance. We discuss applications of this framework in technology development, practitioner training, guideline development, and quality evaluation. This work aims to foster critical discussions on the normative standards for ComAI use in this field.
{"title":"Quality in science communication with communicative artificial intelligence: A principle-based framework.","authors":"Daniel Silva Luna, Irene Broer, Helena Bilandzic, Monika Taddicken, Björn W Schuller, Martin Bürger","doi":"10.1177/09636625251328854","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251328854","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid advancement of communicative artificial intelligence (ComAI) is profoundly impacting science communication, offering new opportunities for easier and more audience-oriented communication. However, it also poses several challenges for its practice. Based on a narrative review of literature on science communication and ComAI quality, this article develops a framework of quality principles for science communication with ComAI. The framework identifies the quality dimensions of scientific integrity, human-centricity, ethical responsiveness, inclusive impact, and governance. We discuss applications of this framework in technology development, practitioner training, guideline development, and quality evaluation. This work aims to foster critical discussions on the normative standards for ComAI use in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"966-987"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535614/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144121259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-31DOI: 10.1177/09636625251341509
Hannah Little, Justin Sulik
Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.
{"title":"How do you argue with a science denial meme? Memed responses may be counter-productive for responding to science denial online.","authors":"Hannah Little, Justin Sulik","doi":"10.1177/09636625251341509","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251341509","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1088-1106"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535622/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144192339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-29DOI: 10.1177/09636625251343507
Massimiano Bucchi, Mike S Schäfer
Tensions between scientific organizations' conceptions and demands regarding public communication on the one hand and the public communication of individual scientists on the other hand exist and may even become more prevalent. Such tensions revolve around issues of institutional reputation management and academic freedom, centralized messaging and individual autonomy, or scientific neutrality and political engagement, and can be catalyzed by changes in media landscapes and sociocultural contexts surrounding scientific institutions. This essay identifies sources and key dimensions of these tensions. It also explores how institutions manage such tensions and how scientists respond, ranging from loyalty to institutional policies to open dissent, self-censorship, and exit. To mitigate conflicts, it advocates for inclusive and transparent communication policies that balance institutional goals with scientific autonomy, fostering trust and ensuring that both organizations and researchers contribute effectively to public discourse.
{"title":"Tensions in the public communication by scientists and scientific institutions: Sources, dimensions, and ways forward.","authors":"Massimiano Bucchi, Mike S Schäfer","doi":"10.1177/09636625251343507","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251343507","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tensions between scientific organizations' conceptions and demands regarding public communication on the one hand and the public communication of individual scientists on the other hand exist and may even become more prevalent. Such tensions revolve around issues of institutional reputation management and academic freedom, centralized messaging and individual autonomy, or scientific neutrality and political engagement, and can be catalyzed by changes in media landscapes and sociocultural contexts surrounding scientific institutions. This essay identifies sources and key dimensions of these tensions. It also explores how institutions manage such tensions and how scientists respond, ranging from loyalty to institutional policies to open dissent, self-censorship, and exit. To mitigate conflicts, it advocates for inclusive and transparent communication policies that balance institutional goals with scientific autonomy, fostering trust and ensuring that both organizations and researchers contribute effectively to public discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1107-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144175337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-22DOI: 10.1177/09636625251330575
Paola Daniore, Jana Sedlakova, Federica Zavattaro, Zoé Huber, Melanie Knieps, Manon Haulotte, Togbé Agbessi Alangue, Artemis Faulk, Viktor von Wyl, Yaniv Benhamou, Felix Gille
The increasing volume of publicly available data brought about by digitalization offers researchers opportunities to examine public sentiment on various national and global issues. However, concerns linked to the use of publicly available data in digital research are insufficiently addressed. To ensure its ethical and trustworthy conduct, it is crucial to assess the public's perception of digital research with publicly available data. We conducted 10 focus groups with 75 participants from the German-, French-, and Italian-speaking regions in Switzerland, reflecting nationwide perspectives on digital research with publicly available data. Through a thematic analysis, four major themes emerged: (1) expectations toward actors and digital research with publicly available data, such as alignment with research standards to promote result validity, using research findings for societal benefit, and ensuring transparency on data use through informed consent; (2) concerns about data reuse for purposes beyond the study's objectives, especially for financial gain, as well as concerns about method reliability, data quality, and privacy; (3) mitigative measures to minimize potential harm, such as through the involvement of external oversight committees; and (4) supportive measures encompassing communication strategies to raise awareness and inform the public about the use of their data for research purposes. Our findings suggest public support for digital research with publicly available data provided that specific expectations are met. Developing a framework for legitimate digital research with publicly available data is identified as a valuable next step, with a focus on broadening public awareness on digital research with publicly available data through nationwide communication campaigns and introducing relevant oversight measures to foster trust.
{"title":"Public views on research with publicly available data in Switzerland: Implications for digital research, science communication, and policy.","authors":"Paola Daniore, Jana Sedlakova, Federica Zavattaro, Zoé Huber, Melanie Knieps, Manon Haulotte, Togbé Agbessi Alangue, Artemis Faulk, Viktor von Wyl, Yaniv Benhamou, Felix Gille","doi":"10.1177/09636625251330575","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251330575","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The increasing volume of publicly available data brought about by digitalization offers researchers opportunities to examine public sentiment on various national and global issues. However, concerns linked to the use of publicly available data in digital research are insufficiently addressed. To ensure its ethical and trustworthy conduct, it is crucial to assess the public's perception of digital research with publicly available data. We conducted 10 focus groups with 75 participants from the German-, French-, and Italian-speaking regions in Switzerland, reflecting nationwide perspectives on digital research with publicly available data. Through a thematic analysis, four major themes emerged: (1) expectations toward actors and digital research with publicly available data, such as alignment with research standards to promote result validity, using research findings for societal benefit, and ensuring transparency on data use through informed consent; (2) concerns about data reuse for purposes beyond the study's objectives, especially for financial gain, as well as concerns about method reliability, data quality, and privacy; (3) mitigative measures to minimize potential harm, such as through the involvement of external oversight committees; and (4) supportive measures encompassing communication strategies to raise awareness and inform the public about the use of their data for research purposes. Our findings suggest public support for digital research with publicly available data provided that specific expectations are met. Developing a framework for legitimate digital research with publicly available data is identified as a valuable next step, with a focus on broadening public awareness on digital research with publicly available data through nationwide communication campaigns and introducing relevant oversight measures to foster trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"988-1008"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535623/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144121257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-06-25DOI: 10.1177/09636625251338190
Kirsten R Vegt, Janneke E Elberse, Bastiaan T Rutjens, Laurens K Hessels
Socially robust knowledge is scientific knowledge accepted by society for its contextual relevance. Citizen science, involving non-professional scientists, offers a promising approach to developing such knowledge. This study examines how citizen science fosters socially robust knowledge through a case-study on noise pollution's impact on health and well-being in the Dutch village of America. Citizen scientists partnered with researchers of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment to study train noise, employing diverse data-collection methods. Interviews with participants revealed trust in this approach and outcomes, contrasting with conventional noise-pollution research. The integration of extended expertise and real-world context, coupled with the project's iterative feedback loop, ensured that findings were accurate and locally relevant. This case-study underscores citizen science's potential to create relevant and adaptable policy-relevant science, offering concrete insights into the key elements that contribute to the social robustness of scientific outcomes.
{"title":"Make America quiet again: Achieving socially robust knowledge on noise pollution through citizen science.","authors":"Kirsten R Vegt, Janneke E Elberse, Bastiaan T Rutjens, Laurens K Hessels","doi":"10.1177/09636625251338190","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251338190","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Socially robust knowledge is scientific knowledge accepted by society for its contextual relevance. Citizen science, involving non-professional scientists, offers a promising approach to developing such knowledge. This study examines how citizen science fosters socially robust knowledge through a case-study on noise pollution's impact on health and well-being in the Dutch village of America. Citizen scientists partnered with researchers of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment to study train noise, employing diverse data-collection methods. Interviews with participants revealed trust in this approach and outcomes, contrasting with conventional noise-pollution research. The integration of extended expertise and real-world context, coupled with the project's iterative feedback loop, ensured that findings were accurate and locally relevant. This case-study underscores citizen science's potential to create relevant and adaptable policy-relevant science, offering concrete insights into the key elements that contribute to the social robustness of scientific outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1066-1087"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535618/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144498438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-05-23DOI: 10.1177/09636625251336650
Robin E Jensen, Madison A Krall, Megan E Cullinan, Ghanima Almuaili
When the first oral contraceptive pill was approved in the United States in 1960, scientific information for potential users was scant. Newspapers were one of the few sources of lay pill-related content. This study offers a critical-rhetorical analysis of the earliest New York Times coverage of the oral contraceptive pill (N = 292), to assess how audiences were guided to understand and interpret this new technology. Findings reveal that, of the major news genres represented (e.g. stock, religion, and science reports), all provided indirect information about the pill for potential consumers, with conflicting news-genre-specific narratives highlighting the pill's: (a) volatility and unpredictability, (b), divisiveness and complexity, and (c) placement within the trajectory of scientific progress, respectively. Lay people interested in using the pill were not primary audiences for this coverage but were, instead, unintended or secondary audiences, and evidence of women's thoughts or professional opinions about the pill were rarely included.
{"title":"Indirect audiences and conflicting narratives about oral contraception: Emergent coverage of \"the pill\" in <i>The New York Times</i>, 1951-1965.","authors":"Robin E Jensen, Madison A Krall, Megan E Cullinan, Ghanima Almuaili","doi":"10.1177/09636625251336650","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251336650","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When the first oral contraceptive pill was approved in the United States in 1960, scientific information for potential users was scant. Newspapers were one of the few sources of lay pill-related content. This study offers a critical-rhetorical analysis of the earliest <i>New York Times</i> coverage of the oral contraceptive pill (<i>N</i> = 292), to assess how audiences were guided to understand and interpret this new technology. Findings reveal that, of the major news genres represented (e.g. stock, religion, and science reports), all provided indirect information about the pill for potential consumers, with conflicting news-genre-specific narratives highlighting the pill's: (a) volatility and unpredictability, (b), divisiveness and complexity, and (c) placement within the trajectory of scientific progress, respectively. Lay people interested in using the pill were not primary audiences for this coverage but were, instead, unintended or secondary audiences, and evidence of women's thoughts or professional opinions about the pill were rarely included.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1028-1045"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144129194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-01Epub Date: 2025-03-25DOI: 10.1177/09636625251320331
Emiliano Grossman
This article looks at how the determinants of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have evolved over the past 50 years. It focuses on several standard explanations of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes-the role of religiosity, the role of education and knowledge, and the role of political interest-and looks at how their importance has varied over time. Similarly, it examines the role of conservative political opinion on attitudes toward science. To do so, it uses a novel data set that includes eight waves of a survey that were fielded over a period of 49 years in France. While people are more educated, have access to more information, and are less religious, the importance of these factors appears to have diminished over time. At the same time, aggregate trends in anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes are not clear-cut. The article shows that anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have become more difficult to explain over time.
{"title":"Anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes over time: The case of France in historical perspective.","authors":"Emiliano Grossman","doi":"10.1177/09636625251320331","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251320331","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article looks at how the determinants of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have evolved over the past 50 years. It focuses on several standard explanations of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes-the role of religiosity, the role of education and knowledge, and the role of political interest-and looks at how their importance has varied over time. Similarly, it examines the role of conservative political opinion on attitudes toward science. To do so, it uses a novel data set that includes eight waves of a survey that were fielded over a period of 49 years in France. While people are more educated, have access to more information, and are less religious, the importance of these factors appears to have diminished over time. At the same time, aggregate trends in anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes are not clear-cut. The article shows that anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have become more difficult to explain over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"868-883"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143701580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-01Epub Date: 2025-03-11DOI: 10.1177/09636625251315446
Sylvia Hayes, Josh Gabbatiss, Catherine Butler
News media has long been recognised for its important role in shaping public discourse and socio-political action relating to climate change. This is particularly true of opinion journalism, which reflects elite voices. Within the climate change communications literature, an important shift marks a turn away from outright denial of the existence of climate change towards delaying narratives. In this paper, we use a longitudinal mixed-methods analysis to chart 'discourses of delay' in editorials relating not only directly to climate change but to the closely connected issue of energy transitions across seventeen UK daily and weekly newspapers over the period 2011-2021. Though we find both a trend away from outright denial of climate change and an identifiable increase in support for climate action even among right-leaning editorials over this period, we also show that narratives are characterised by multiple discourses of delay across both climate change and various energy narratives.
{"title":"From climate scepticism to discourses of delay in UK editorials.","authors":"Sylvia Hayes, Josh Gabbatiss, Catherine Butler","doi":"10.1177/09636625251315446","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251315446","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>News media has long been recognised for its important role in shaping public discourse and socio-political action relating to climate change. This is particularly true of opinion journalism, which reflects elite voices. Within the climate change communications literature, an important shift marks a turn away from outright denial of the existence of climate change towards delaying narratives. In this paper, we use a longitudinal mixed-methods analysis to chart 'discourses of delay' in editorials relating not only directly to climate change but to the closely connected issue of energy transitions across seventeen UK daily and weekly newspapers over the period 2011-2021. Though we find both a trend away from outright denial of climate change and an identifiable increase in support for climate action even among right-leaning editorials over this period, we also show that narratives are characterised by multiple discourses of delay across both climate change and various energy narratives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"832-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449614/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143606631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}