Souls of Science: Concepts & Literature

This document outlines key ideas from science communication literature that have informed the development of this workshop. Reference these ideas to build context around the purpose of building personal narratives in science communication as a means of building trust with audiences.

- Science communication is the process of informing and engaging the public about scientific research, often using a variety of communication tools and approaches. 

- Science communication is evolving as we engage in different social and digital forms. 

- Research on science communication is progressing as well, though the complexities of these spaces mean that new methods of communicating science are emerging.

- We’re seeing a shift away from a ‘Knowledge Deficit’ approach. 

- Instead of simply exposing audiences to more information to help them ‘learn,’ we’re realizing that more nuanced methods are required to help people relate to and integrate science.

- The knowledge deficit model is limited and lacking a dynamic perspective towards audiences and practitioners alike (Nisbit, 2009; Seethaler et al., 2019; Simis et al., 2016; Trench, 2008)

- Not all people learn the same way. Science topics can be complex and require careful attention to each situation (Bubela et al., 2009)

- Why is science communication important? Communicating important research can cut through the vastness of our internet spaces, navigate highly saturated social media platforms, help us address challenging climate problems and health crises, and inform cultural and social dialogues. This can help ensure science is valuable and accessible to society.

- Scientists are motivated to promote public understanding, provide, value, build interest and engagement with science, motivated to contribute to the bigger picture (Martín-Sempere et al., 2008)

- Science communicators are interested in advancing communication skills, growing social dynamics around science, engaging others, promoting appreciation for science, encouraging independent thought (Cerrato et al., 2018)

- Researchers’ intentions to communicate are informed by their past efforts, values, abilities, perception of peer investment in science communication (Poliakoff and Webb, 2007)

- Promote positive public perceptions of science communication with clear messages, address audience backgrounds, promote trust, create ethical communication goals (Besley et al., 2015)

- Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable as a result of anticipating positive outcomes, demonstrated through behavior and expressions; it is dynamic and cannot be manufactured (Rousseau et al., 1998; Schultz, 2006)

- Building trust is highly valuable and worthwhile on social media 

- Science-related dialogues are more frequently occurring in digital spaces (Brossard, 2013; Su et al., 2015)

- People get exposure to science within their existing use patterns instead of seeking it out; social media is normalized and trusted; Social spheres (on social media) can distill information well (Huber et al., 2019)

- Science communicators can build buzz online through audience interactions around research (Liang et al., 2014)

- Online spaces for dialogue with public and scientists can allow for openness and exploration (Bates et al., 2010)

- Misinformation can diminish impact of beneficial research, trusted actors can correct the issues though it remains a case-by-case basis (Vraga and Bode, 2017)

- Personal narratives exemplify an ideal trust building basis

- Scientists can share authentic personal experiences that demonstrate vulnerability and openness to connect with audiences

- Sharing experiences and personal perspectives can supplement data when presenting an idea, helping to ground it (Hagmann et al., 2020)

- Sharing personal narratives can form the basis for familiarity and a form of connection (parasocial or otherwise) in digital spaces, leading to trust

- Big Picture: A key component of science communication is the role of scientists to share and represent research. If scientists share their personal narratives, it may require a shift in their mindset and interaction.

- Scientists are advocates for their own research and ideal trustworthy representatives of facts and integrity, but is it fair to ask them to take on the role of educating the public?

- Many already have their hands full with research, lack the flexibility to engage in science communication, may have no experience or training with communication, or simply lack interest in this role. Time towards communication is time away from research (Langan et al., 2019)

- We can start by providing training and support for those who are interested, willing, and able to engage in communicating research (Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein, 2017)

- Scientists can act as information gatekeepers, stewards, liaisons of science in social media spaces, can verify information (Weingart and Guenther, 2016)

- Science communicators should understand digital landscapes, develop strong presence online (Bik and Goldstein, 2013)

- Scientists can fill the knowledge deficit ‘gap’ by acting as communicators through media outlets to convey research (Hans Peters, 2013)

- Consider a two-way dialogue model that features discussions and promotes shared learning (Reincke et al., 2020)

- Researchers can promote knowledge sharing by being involved in community dialogues about life, collaboration, culture (Bolton and Young-Robertson, 2020)

- Adding personal identities to science communication builds representation and dialogues.

- Current shift to build inclusive science communication by addressing structural barriers and longstanding limitations to equity and inclusion (Feliu-Mojer, 2020)

- First-person accounts of science provide link between researchers and audiences (Neeley et al., 2020)

- Narrative formats overcome structural obstacles to science equity and access, and promote inclusion (Neeley et al., 2020)

- Stories are one of the most fundamental pieces of human interaction. Over centuries, we’ve integrated stories as deeply meaningful and impactful tools in society. Stories can be used to convey science, though this is still a critical point of research. 

- Stories help overcome the deficit model by integrating science into everyday culture, reaching toward human qualities and connections, where emotion, learning, and value can be accessed (Davies et al., 2019; Jones and Peterson, 2017; Jones and Anderson Crow, 2017)

- The Narrative paradigm: stories are part of human nature and shaped by our experiences.

- We can view all people as storytellers; all communication comes through the form of a story

- Argues that stories are more convincing than arguments

- Stories are not objective, but based around authors’ experiences, values, perspectives (Fisher, 1985)

- Stories are a vessel to share discoveries, create a dialogue, promote retention and personal associations with science (Hecker et al., 2018)

- Stories can target an audience’s interest through voice, action and resolution (Downs, 2014)

- Transportation theory: narratives can immerse audiences, create intimacy with topic (Green, 2008)

- Transportation can arise from positive or negative topics, immersion comes from how a narrative is built, audiences can explore an immersive narrative to make connections (Green et al., 2004)

- Narratives can captivate and inform simultaneously, can have a strong persuasive effect, and can have ethical implications for their use (Dahlstrom, 2012)

- Sharing scientific information through a narrative is different than sharing your  personal perspective of being a scientist-- we are focusing on the latter

- Personal narratives are representations of a person’s life experience, purpose, fulfillment, expression, and interactions.

- We can view stories as tools to share scientists’ stories, show their personalities, and give them a voice—all of which comes before any science discussion

- Sharing stories about scientists is useful for science communication, but needs more research on applications and limits more broadly (ethics) (Muindi et al., 2020)

- Narrative Identity: the process of building a sense of personal continuity to make sense of the world, which is told through internal story dialogue (McAdams, 2001; 2013; 2008)

- Life can be viewed as a series of narrative threads with each thread being a different role in life, phase in time, perspective, or series of events; this helps build a personal life narrative without trying to account for every detail (Lumsden, 2013)

- Similarly, different ‘arcs’ of life shape perspectives or decisions; a phase in time or an experience can have a natural beginning and conclusion

- When stories are meaningful, they elicit emotion and affect responses from audiences, which can help them engage and connect to the characters or themes

- Affect is an emotional response, either positive or negative, that plays a role in an audience’s reception to a story (Nabi, 2014)

- The Affect Heuristic: our automatic, physiological reactions influence emotions and determine how we react to information. First impressions set the tone for someone’s perception of something and subsequent decisions (Slovic et al., 2007)

- Empathy is a result of an affect response, a response from perceiving images or narratives that align with values (Pence, 2004)

- Narrative Empathy: audiences can share an emotional connection to a character’s emotions and experiences; this helps audiences invest and engage (Keen, 2006)

- When possible, include the audience in the process of building stories by creating common ideas, unifying factors, characters all people can connect with, and asking questions that involve them in the theme or topic

- Co-creating narratives can help overcome difficult circumstances and share common experiences (Lea Gaydos, 2005)

- Access audience’s experiences as valuable contributions to a story (Lea Gaydos, 2005)

- Shape your story around a key message, idea, or feeling that will elicit a reaction from the audience

- Keep the structure simple, the ideas bite-sized, and the message clear

- Open with an idea that evokes curiosity; be creative in framing the story, much like a journalist writes a compelling headline

- End with a positive idea that inspires the audience to learn more (about you or your work)

- Using images to represent narrative ideas can provide a quick, effective, and strong connection for audiences to engage with the story and the storyteller

- Visual communication can offer opportunities to connect with audiences in digital and social media spaces, helping to engage with ideas (Adami and Jewitt, 2016; Bock, 2017; Nie, 2017; Russmann and Svensson, 2017)

- Applied Transportation theory: combining images with narrative elements, like character and context, help transport audiences and build relationships in social media spaces like Instagram. For images to be impactful, they should be connected to other narrative components that give it significance (Lim and Childs, 2020)

- Images will impact people differently; the emotions that arise for the audience can be as important as the image’s subject itself (Fairey and Orton, 2019)

- Photographs can create space for dialogue by allowing people to share feelings, reactions, and explore these and other ideas presented (Fairey and Orton, 2019)

- Types of portraits of scientists can impact audience’s perceptions of a subject portrayed (Jacobi and Schiele, 1989)

- Scientist working in a lab: perceived as focused, invested, credible

- Scientist posed for standard portrait: power in eye contact, sense emotion

- Scientists at home or in an intimate setting: sense of personality, human quality, authenticity, and individuality

- Images can make or break an audience’s perceptions of a subject. Taking and sharing our own photographs can help to promote identity and ownership of experiences and help others overcome existing misconceptions of our experiences (Bowles, 2017)

This document provides an analysis of relevant science communication literature that has informed the development of concepts that are integral to this workshop. This can be used to help facilitators build context and lead the workshop from an informed perspective. Citations are listed in the Workshop References Document.

Addressing the concept of researchers using visuals to communicate their personal narratives in digital spaces requires synthesis of common themes from existing literature into an approachable, shareable format. Workshop participants should also be provided with the larger context of science communication, how narratives work, visual communication approaches, and trust-building to consider why it is valuable for their personal investment. Additionally, facilitators should be well informed on the current state of literature to lead from an informed perspective.

Despite vast contextual differences, specific goals, and niche veins of research topics, it is worthwhile to consider common research threads on the role of science communication and how information is distributed to audiences. Over time, research teams have presented varying approaches to the process of communicating science information. In 2003, Burns and colleagues sought to develop an understanding of science communication’s scope by determining how it compares to themes of scientific literacy, public understanding, and awareness. From this, they produced the AEIOU concept, where science communication can yield a variety of responses: awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-forming, and understanding (2003). This perspective allows for an open-ended approach that can be subjectively interpreted for specific disciplines or audiences, and still applies within a digital media era. 

Not all perspectives on science communication are as optimistic. A vastly different approach comes from Martin Bauer’s 2008 analysis of paradigm change in science communication, denoting a shift from the ‘educational’ intentions of science communication and towards public relations, or a ‘public scrutiny’ perspective of commercialized scientific research. Bauer describes the shift from the origins of science as a common social good, and towards a privatized, commercialized endeavor, where communication lies between business marketing and a distant, fabricated image of science that is fed to the public through conscious media framing. 

Framing theory, pioneered by Erving Goffman, describes the selective presentation of information through media and has proliferated throughout communications scholarship (1974). This process is well-founded in modern media, with particular emphasis on news media outlets. When information is selectively presented, either to promote comprehension or build narrative angles, audiences are subject to understand information from a certain perspective.

Considering framing choices made in the media, Bauer suggests that the public should develop a critical perspective and should not get lost in the shock of novel scientific discoveries, suggesting that sufficiently skeptical publics are able to cut through exaggerated or sensationalistic scientific research coverage, allowing authentic and accurate science communication to shine through (Bauer, 2008). This transcends disciplines and applies today in digital media spaces, requiring audiences to address framing choices in the media they engage with. 

The intertwining of science within institutions and policymakers, especially in the face of an expanding, saturated digital media environment, further complicates the public relationship to scientific knowledge. This dynamic offers opportunities for interested members of the public to advance their scientific literacy through open access to information, though can also promote apathy through saturation of information. In response to this complexity, Bubela and colleagues address the longstanding notion of the Knowledge Deficit model, or the perspective that the public will gain greater knowledge through simple exposure to information. They suggest that some topics are complex, and not all individuals have the education or experience to understand these ideas, and other factors will be involved in shaping perceptions (2009). The Deficit model, while accepted by some, faces widespread controversy in recent science communication research, cited as being limited and lacking a dynamic perspective towards audiences and practitioners alike (Nisbit, 2009, Seethaler et al., 2019, Simis et al., 2016, Trench, 2008). The Deficit perspective also, perhaps subtly, describes a ‘gap’ between scientists and audiences which Hans Peters (2013) suggests that science communicators are responsible for filling by using modern media outlets, like social media. Reincke and colleagues also contest the Deficit model, instead emphasizing on two-way dialogues with public audiences, involve collaboration between experts and public, resulting in shared learning and topic exploration (Reincke et al., 2020), which emerges again in discussions of trust-building. From this shift, science communication requires more nuanced, creative approaches to sharing complex topics with the public. It is important to consider the element of trust and the representations of these subjects in other social spheres and culture, and the subsequent influence on public perceptions as a result.

These perspectives present a challenging question for science communication: how do we share positive, trustworthy science and educate a skeptical public who may mistrust the messenger’s intentions? Bauer (2008) offers a concluding thought—we should promote public conversation around scientific information and foster scientific literacy. The idea of conversation will prove to be a pivotal element in science communication practices as it allows for positive intent and education while treating the public as valuable players in discussions about the role of science as a social good—a view that is directly involved with the factor of trust.

Trust is a valuable element to incorporate into any communication practice. While many steps can be taken to promote trust, establishing a sense of trust is challenging due to the number of variables in any situation. In a cross-discipline examination of trust, Rousseau and colleagues describe trust as a willingness to be vulnerable with another party as a result of anticipating positive outcomes, demonstrated through behavior and other expressions. The authors explain that trust progresses through stages of building, stability, and dissolution, indicating that it is not a static, permanent state but is dictated by changes in relationships over time (1998). This suggests that trust must be continuously evaluated and will likely be implemented differently across disciplines. Similarly, Schultz describes trust as a psychological state, not a decision, that stems from behaviors. Presenting a trust framework model, Schultz connects the trustor to the trustee in a situational model, a transactional model, and a trust equation, indicating that relationships play a role in how, if, and when trust will progress. Trust cannot be manufactured nor guaranteed, indicating that those seeking to be trusted should pursue contexts that best promote opportunities for trust (2006). From these perspectives, behavior and positive intention are significant building blocks for trust and engagement goals for science communicators, a key perspective for the trust dynamic between researchers and audiences.

Science-related dialogues are more frequently occurring in digital spaces, such as social media (Brossard, 2013; Su et al., 2015). A study on the role of social media in public trust in science from Huber and colleagues suggests that social media is more trusted than standard news outlets on a global scale. The findings suggest that as individuals use social media, they receive more exposure to science within their existing use patterns, rather than necessarily seeking it out. Additionally, an individual’s social spheres can help to share and validate information. Lastly, there is a significant increase in trust when scientists convey information on these platforms (2019). Sbaffi and Rowley elaborate on this by suggesting that greater expertise in communicators can prompt greater trust in the studies discussed (2017). As scientists engage as communicators online, their interactions can begin to ‘build buzz,’ or engagement, with their content, as explored by Liang and colleagues, which can break down some traditional distance between scientists and public audiences (2014). Further, spaces for dialogues between the public and researchers can allow for openness and exploration, which can lead to greater trust when it comes to difficult or confusing topics (Bates et al., 2010). Promoting spaces for these dialogues can be a critical step in effective science communication.

Large scale engagement on media platforms may also be useful to help individuals validate the scientist as a credible source, especially if their (virtual) social circles feel similarly. However, there are potential adverse effects of science communicators engaging through social media. Though Liang and colleagues recognize the advantages of trust-building potential with science experts on social media, there remains inherent exposure biases when these individuals are promoted, through cross-sharing or ‘re-tweeting’, by highly popular figures. In this way, the science communicator is exposed to more individuals, which can help to broaden their audience, but may also yield metrics, like clicks or shares, that guide search engines and content algorithms (2014). Simply, these popularity contests could become prioritized or serve as a replacement for the quality or relevance of the science itself. Expanding on this, Liang and colleagues suggest that once science communicators share research online, individuals can reinterpret the information to their own social spheres incorrectly which can create misinformation (2014). 

Communicators can inadvertently become vectors for misinformation, though not all misinformation is accidental and false ideas can become ubiquitous. The proliferation of inaccurate information online is outlined by Allcott and Gentzkow’s 2017 study on the 2016 Presidential election, describing Donald Trump spreading ‘fake news’ that was deemed credible to his audience because he was seen as a trusted actor to them. The authors suggest that this ties into other elements, such as confirmation bias, which can influence large-scale decisions, in this case voting preferences (2017). Misinformation can quickly inform false beliefs which diminishes the impact of potentially beneficial research, and trust actors are needed to use their platform to correct the record, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressing public health issues (Vraga and Bode, 2017). The spread of misinformation can challenge public audiences to sift through and verify information that can be novel, complicated, or abstract (Pulido et al., 2020). However, many of these challenges are more focused on science research itself, whereas science communicators as actors in social media spaces can provide opportunities for engaging with audiences, particularly in the context of personal narratives.

Suggesting that scientists should engage in science communication roles may appear to be a straightforward, natural progression and effective means of building trust with the public, yet it is worth addressing the assumptions that such a claim brings. Recent research has addressed the process of scientists evolving past their traditional research roles and undertaking more communication endeavors. Weingart and Guenther propose that researchers can engage as “gatekeepers,” stewards, or liaisons of information in social media interactions. They suggest that this human-centric element, led by a face and a name, can allow scientists to promote accurate information to the public and verify claims made online. Not only does this help to promote public trust in information, it also creates trust with the mode of communication itself, such as through social media spaces (2016). Tsafi and Capella support this by suggesting that publics are typically only interested in engaging with content that they trust (2003). As there are many variables associated with communication modes, such as the proliferation of misinformation, promoting public trust in science communicators is an ideal focus point. 

What exactly are we asking of our scientists? While viewing researchers in this gatekeeping role could be effective in providing validation for claims, as well as establishing them as individual experts, it is accompanied by additional pressure and expectations. In a review of common science communication literature, Langan and colleagues emphasize that many researchers are not trained as professional communicators, as such a role often demands. Even if they can perform this gatekeeping function well, there is an additional cost of time and energy that pulls the individual away from their original focus of conducting research. Based on these sources, the authors express that science communicators should find ways to engage with audiences, especially through tools like social media, and present grounded, human qualities to their audiences. They also address the issues with social media, such as the saturation of ideas and algorithmic dictation of access to information (2019). Similarly, Bik and Goldstein express that scientists should have a solid understanding of the social media landscape and equip themselves to develop a strong online presence according to their personal communication goals. The authors suggest that science communicators should build their own website to share quality research, discover and engage in online dialogues with diverse audiences and find ways to effectively reach their target groups (2013). These tips offer a range of involvement that may be more accommodating to scientists who are hesitant or new to this perspective.

Two-way symmetrical communication, associated with James Grunig’s 1992 Excellence Theory, has been foundational to the field of public relations, encouraging practitioners to include audiences in decision-making (2013). For science communication, this means treating audiences as equals in the process of sharing science information to the public. In interviews with North American science communicators, Yuan and colleagues found that many communicators recognize the value of incorporating audience perspectives but may lack training or skills to enact the necessary steps for two-way communication. This process of relationship-building requires an ability to identify conditions, understand audiences, and determine a course of action, which the authors suggest requires training (2017). Drawing on Grunig’s concepts in the public relations field, alongside emphasis on relationship-building, may prove valuable to science communication research.

Establishing intentions early in a social interaction can provide a basis for trust, wherein the parties can assume positive intent while engaging (Ho and Weigelt, 2005). In seeking to build trust between two different social groups, such as researchers and lay audiences, honesty, authenticity, and openness are important factors to fostering community, supported by Barnett et al. (2010). Building trust and establishing facts at the daily basis level of human lives, rather than asking for global changes at once, promotes community-wide trust that does not require trust to be a ‘decision’ (Lidskog, 1996). Bolton and Young-Roberston suggest that researchers involved in dialogues and conversations with community members about topics such as life, collaboration, culture, and climate, can promote both knowledge-sharing and entertainment (2020). These studies indicate that focusing on community-building may be a strong precursor to discussing scientific research.

Empowering researchers to engage with audiences to foster trust must be met with resources, paired with evidence to support communication steps. Some increase in training has emerged as organizations prioritize science communication and seek out researchers to engage in this role, though Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein express a need for continuity or best-practices for science communicators. This may emerge in the form of desired outcomes, objectives, or skills, alongside review processes, which the authors outline (2017). Creating a sense of continuity or objectivity for what makes an effective communicator can attempt to compensate for a lack of training and can be paired alongside more creative approaches such as sharing personal narratives.

Scientists engaging as communicators can provide a transition between research and public perceptions. This transfer of information is captured in The People’s Choice, Paul Lazarsfeld’s original 1944 description of two-step flow theory, which describes how perceptions are passed from media outlets to members of the public by means of opinion leaders, who interpret information in their own way (2021). Alongside Katz in 1955, the two explored the implications of this paradigm in Personal Influence, revealing that opinion leaders distribute information in communities, though not necessarily acting in any formal or deliberate capacity (2017). Despite Katz and Lazarsfeld’s strong influence in the two-step flow paradigm, the concept of opinion leaders has been underserved by science communication research. In the context of climate change campaigns, Nisbet and Kotcher consider how opinion leaders, exemplified by Al Gore’s two substantial national climate campaigns, can serve as an addition to large scale campaign efforts. The authors also describe how the influence of these opinion leaders is not limited strictly to messages, and can permeate through personalities, presence, and demonstrations of leadership (2009). By understanding the two-step flow concept, communicators can have an awareness of their role in the information-transfer process, and while not necessarily acting at large-scale campaign levels, can use personality and presence as influential tools when interacting with audiences. 

The two-step flow theory is challenged by the modernized, internet-influenced one-step flow theory, outlined by Bennet and Manheim, who suggest that recent trends demonstrate that media outlets are specifying audiences and condensing messaging down to a more individualized level. The authors suggest that opinion leaders are now less involved in this information transfer and engaged more in the process of confirming ideas rather than presenting new ones (2006). As social media use has progressed significantly since either of these studies, Choi’s study (2015) of Twitter discussions indicates that opinion leaders remain influential in sharing information, potentially as a result of increased access to the creators of media content (large organizations). Choi suggests that in many cases, opinion leaders are ordinary people sharing information that others deem agreeable (2015), as outlined by Katz and Lazarsfeld (2017). Given the limited explorations on this process, more research is needed to understand the implications of the two-step or one-step flow theories (or both) in science communication, particularly as they apply to scientists and as they influence the dispersion of information or misinformation.

While trust is a simple idea with complex variables, transparency can be examined as a tool to create space for trust to emerge. Simine Vazire suggests that a lack of transparency in scientific research will diminish trust, and thus impact public perceptions of other research, citing common journal practices of synthesizing research topics into fine-tuned, attractive, marketable ideas that could be harmful to audience perceptions. Vazire explains that while such a process does not indicate a lower quality of research, it is a disservice to the audience’s opportunity to determine high quality research from lower quality research; addressing these practices and promoting transparent research information could help make scientific journals more accountable to the quality of research (2017). Promoting transparency in journals also requires consideration of readership and the subsequent flow of interpretations made by opinion leaders to public audiences. It is necessary to explore this process further and consider the element of transparency if it may prove useful to science communicators. Diverting from a streamlined or ‘marketable’ presentation of scientific information may impact engagement or interest, which could be overcome by science communicators engaging with audiences.

Transparency has complicated factors in practice. Stephen John (2017) challenges the notion of trust-building and transparency in science communication by examining a climate research leak that promoted public distrust in research practices and reinforced existing climate denial beliefs. John suggests that recommendations of mutual trust and peer-to-peer connection are simply ethical ideals that should not be associated in the complex dynamic of distilling information from an expert to general audiences. John’s perspective is that if public audiences are presented with a transparent and essentially weakened demonstration of scientific research that existing false beliefs will persist. In this sense, science communication should be calculated, precise, and strategic, and not based on relationships or dialogues with non-experts who lack perspective (2017). While this may vastly contrast other studies emphasizing openness, it is important to address the counterarguments to such action. Persistent in this discussion is the treatment of audiences—should they be viewed as equal in dialogues, or simply message recipients that need to be molded toward a certain perspective?

The practice of transparency, or lack thereof, presents a divisive problem that lies at the heart of science communication—current methods would consider a streamlined approach to presenting scientific research to be more accessible and trustworthy, while another suggests that this lack of transparency is fundamentally problematic to establishing trust and reputation with the public.  Sharing unpolished or raw data could appear unprofessional, unapproachable, or confusing, thus minimizing engagement. Considering the threshold of ‘formality’ in presenting research may be best aligned with the concept of the formalized role of scientists themselves. Amidst this complexity, Elliott presents a taxonomy for transparent actions dictated by goals, audiences, topic, and potential adverse effects. This guide creates potential to enact the valuable elements of transparency while maintaining a specific, reasonable approach at a system level. Elliott further expresses the role of philosophy in determining social values at large-scale perspectives that science communication often deserves (2020). Investment in tools can help science communicators and offer acceptable standards for complex decisions. 

Identifying factors that motivate scientists to engage in the roles of communicators and topic experts can help to enhance training, foster interest, and promote quality science communication. According to Martín-Sempere and colleagues’ series of interviews with 167 researchers from various disciplines at the Madrid Science Fair, scientists are motivated to promote public understanding, provide value, and build interest and engagement in science, with some expressing motivation towards a sense of contribution or commitment to a larger initiative (2008). 

Similarly, when discussing science communication motivations with young scientists volunteering in public youth education programs, Cerrato and colleagues found that the scientists were interested in advancing their communication skills, helping to grow the social dynamic around science, engaging others and spreading appreciation for science, and encouraging independent thought. After the program, the scientists described these factors as even more beneficial than they initially expected, and further explained benefits like interpersonal and emotional impacts, open-mindedness, competency as a communicator and critical scientist, and a sense of community impact. Limiting factors or barriers for engaging in this role included inexperience, public mistrust in science or scientists, financial stresses towards volunteering their time, and a lack of volunteers in the program overall (2018). This feedback can inform training for emerging researchers and their communication initiatives, though more research is needed to understand how this compares to older generations, and what factors may prompt such differences. 

Scientists who are supported by public funding can commit to communicating their research to help advance society, as described by Poliakoff and Webb. Adapting the theory of planned behavior, which suggests that intentions are indicators of action, the authors distributed questions about researcher’s attitudes, perceptions, norms, restraints, and intentions towards communicating their topic of specialization. Results indicated that researchers’ intentions to communicate or engage with the public were informed by their past behavior or prior efforts, attitudes and values, ability to communicate, and perception of their peers’ investments in communications. The authors note that past behavior was a dominant indicator of future behavior, and those who had not engaged as communicators were unlikely to begin to do so. Additionally, concepts like fear, time, environmental or financial stresses were found to be not significant barriers for this group (2007). The concepts in this study indicate a further point of analysis, requiring an understanding of why scientists may not pursue communications in their career, why they may lack the skills or confidence, and why their peers’ actions are a valuable factor. 

  While it is worthwhile to consider what motivates scientists to engage in science communication generally, it is also important to understand how science communication training is perceived. Besley and colleagues created five criteria to address communication training perceptions for public engagement, which included designing clear messages, perceptions of trust, and addressing audience backgrounds. Feedback from over 400 scientists indicates that they valued training on designing trustworthy and clear messages for online communication engagement, sought to make an impact, and prioritized ethical communication goals. Framing messages in accordance with audience backgrounds was seen as less important (2015). This study shares important dialogue on scientists’ existing priorities in public engagement, which can form the basis for training and processes that encourage their participation in science communication initiatives. 

  Describing the different perspectives of science communication roles may motivate scientists to communicate their work, as outlined by Horst’s 2013 analysis of Danish scientists’ perceptions. While science communication often takes a siloed form where an individual researcher shares their work, the author suggests that the act of communicating science can be viewed as a process of representing the organizational component of larger scientific endeavors, placing emphasis on sharing how science is conducted instead of only communicating the outcomes of a specific study. In interviews with top scientists, Horst describes the role of an expert of a discipline, a research manager for a specific group, or a guardian for scientific establishments (2013). This perspective may encourage scientists to view science communication as a process of engaging in roles in support of larger initiatives, rather than an individualized experience, and could inform future science communication training. 

One opportunity to promote trust in science is in the role of science communicators as individual actors sharing personal narratives before sharing scientific research. To address this, it is important to understand how narratives work, the potential of engagement through narratives, their successful uses within scientific communication, and the distinction of science communicators sharing personal narratives. 

A foundational theory from Walter Fisher, known as the Narrative Paradigm, suggests that humans are natural storytellers who engage in the creating and sharing of stories from their life experiences. These narratives are considered internally consistent and reliable, as they are shaped by legitimate human experiences. Stories have existed for much of human history, and in viewing all people as storytellers, Fisher suggests that all communication happens through some form of story—either one we tell ourselves or to others. Traditional perspectives from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle suggest that persuasion is best guided by logic, though Fisher proposed that narratives are more natural and effective communication tools than logical arguments. In this lens, stories are not objective or logical facts but are based around sets of experiences, values, and perspectives that make sense to the narrator and are plausible from a human perspective (1985). The narrative paradigm is effective due to its ability to represent human communication and provide an explanation, and subsequently a useful tool, to the way we share information. 

Immersion within a narrative is a familiar experience for many and is well represented by Melanie Green’s Transportation Theory, which describes the process of being immersed or ‘transported’ into the narrative’s context. Based on psychological processes, this creates opportunities for the recipient to have a close experience with the topic, indicating that it is a powerful device for engaging audiences with certain ideas (Green, 2008). Elaborating on this, Green and colleagues suggest that transportation can be prompted either by positive or negative subject matter, indicating that immersion is a result of the narrative construction. Based largely on connection, a basic human interest, audiences can explore the narrative bounds, learn new information, and make connections—all of which transport them within the narrative (Green et al., 2004). This understanding indicates that narratives are useful devices for connection and persuasion around a central theme.

This process of engagement is articulated by Busselle and Bilandzic who suggest that audiences use prior life experience to contextualize and enhance the ideas contained within a narrative they receive. Because narrative engagement is often dictated by the form, such as through film, news, or text, the authors asked study participants to view a narrative and rate their experience according to comprehension, focus, emotional responses, and transportation (referred to as presence). The model used in this study provides quantifiable measures of engagement to understand the influencing factors on how narratives engage viewers (2009). Similar studies and scales are necessary to apply narrative across disciplines and inform communication strategies.

Science communication is tasked with relaying information and sharing knowledge, though ideal forms and methods can vary. Stories are valuable tools for overcoming the deficit model by suggesting an integration of science into everyday culture, reaching toward human qualities and connections, where emotion, learning, and value can be accessed (Davies et al., 2019; Jones and Peterson, 2017; Jones and Anderson Crow, 2017). 

One consideration is to use narrative as a vessel to convey personal relevance of science, expressed by ElShafie, who describes the process of establishing stories from existing, factual information (2018). In this sense, science is represented in a different way that holds significance but does not manipulate facts. Yet, as outlined by narrative transportation, this process can have tremendous implications for engagement. 

Effective science communication can synthesize a complex, distant idea into a context that is familiar, local, and approachable for an individual. Hecker and colleagues claim that new scientific discoveries will not be useful unless properly and effectively shared with the public, policymakers, or media. By nature, stories provide a space for human emotions and social dynamics, allowing a shift from one-way conversation towards a dialogue approach, promoting greater memory retention and personal associations (Hecker et al., 2018). Vitally, this shift denotes the integration of audiences into science communication dialogues as contributors and participants, as supported by Riedlinger and colleagues (2019). These implications provide valuable opportunities for trust, transparency, and connection.

Julie Downs proposes that scientists can be creative in crafting stories for their specific needs by identifying certain aspects that are likely to engage a target audience and promote interest in new scientific research. Some elements, Downs describes, might include a narrator’s voice, conflict in the specific focus area, and some degree of action and resolution. Further, the use of a ‘prescriptive narrative’ allows the scientist to communicate according to an audience’s beliefs, barriers, or motivators to promote engagement or success. If framed well, the narrative will have increased potency, leading to greater memory, and potentially promoting behavior change. This gives scientists mutual ground to present information by incorporating the audience preemptively (2014). This approach is already commonly implemented in news media and mass media outlets, and is effective in informing audience beliefs, especially in science contexts (Dahlstrom, 2014). 

Narratives can be useful for audiences without expertise to comprehend scientific findings (Martinez-Conde and Macknik, 2017). Michael Dahlstrom views narratives as a progressive connection of events, typically led by characters. He expresses that it is important to prevent misinformation by prioritizing well-founded information to build a narrative upon. Additionally, information packaged in narrative format can help resistant groups understand scientific findings (2014). However, despite the best intentions in seeking connection and emotional engagement, a space for strong persuasion emerges when using narratives. Dahlstrom suggests that narratives aim to captivate and inform simultaneously, sometimes causing the audience to be removed from the full context of the logical process of data collection and examination. The audience perspective will likely not be the same as those who conducted the research, despite any amount of detailed shared (2012). This is ultimately a natural challenge in science communication and not exclusive to narratives, and well-meaning science communicators should aim to promote truth before any other factor. Using narrative to convey personal experiences does not contain quite the same contextual challenge, yet retains persuasive power.

Based on the potential for engaging audiences with narratives, personal narratives, or stories about one’s life experiences, could provide an open space for connection and dialogues to emerge. As researchers engage in the role of storyteller, they can share experiences and perspectives in an intimate, approachable way. Muindi and colleagues suggest that sharing stories about scientists plays an important role in science communication, but the current state of the concept does not have clear limits, causing many questions to arise about its applicability (Muindi et al., 2020). While more research on the subject is needed, numerous nonprofit and small organizations capture this concept by building platforms (e.g., websites, events, or podcasts) to elevate scientists’ personal narratives (StoriesinScience.org; StoryCollider.org). 

At the Story Collider, Liz Neeley and colleagues suggest that personal narratives, or ‘first-person’ accounts of science, provide a strong link between scientific processes and audiences, as demonstrated through the numerous stories and shows produced by the program across the country. They suggest that a narrative format also overcomes structural obstacles to equity in science access and promotes inclusion among minority audiences (Neeley et al., 2020).

Outside of limited literature on personal narratives in science communication, psychology and philosophy inform the basis for discussion. Narrative identity, described by Dan McAdams, is the process of building a sense of personal continuity to make sense of the world, told through an internal story that progresses throughout life (2001; 2013). McAdams suggests that within an overall narrative identity, personal narratives are often representations, however large or small, of a human’s life experiences, what our purpose is, how we find fulfillment, and how we express and interact with others (2008).

The task of representing life through a single narrative is challenging. David Lumsden proposes that one alternative is to view life in the form of numerous narrative threads (2013). For example, a scientist’s career could be a single thread that could parallel or merge with other narrative threads of childhood, education, or parenthood experiences. This perspective is useful for coaxing out personal narratives in a simplified way, but also prevents the storyteller from attempting to represent their entire life at once, a task that is far too demanding, particularly for this proposed science communication role. 

Personal narratives contain implicit bias, though this can be positive. Daniel Dennett suggests that as someone begins to explore their own life narrative, the result will not be objective truth, but instead their own interpretation of their experiences. Naturally, stories about our own experiences originate from our personal lens. Dennett describes this as the Self is a center of gravity for narratives—stories revolve around one’s perspective. This process of interpretation makes an interesting narrative, as the author is creating something based around their experiences and perceptions of life. Dennett supports this by suggesting that if one were to write someone else’s life narrative, it would be an interpretation of their perceived behavior that could not account for that subject’s internal experiences, therefore would not capture the whole objective truth (1992). In other words, the self (or consciousness, ego, soul) cannot be wholly represented, but instead acceptable representation comes through the stories that we tell about ourselves, to ourselves, and to others. 

Personal narratives have been applied in nursing practices, where nurses and patients share life experiences together in a process of ‘co-creating’ a narrative, explored by Lea Gaydos. This process can create ownership for patients in difficult circumstances and can also be represented visually through forms of art therapy. Lea Gaydos expressed that the power of this process is in the relationship between the storyteller (patient) and the listener (nurse), where the process of externalizing the personal narrative is what creates an impactful experience (2005). This process of shared narratives could apply to distant and complex science issues, such as climate change, where personal narratives from scientists are shared and experienced with audiences to build relationships.

Connecting to Emotions for Increased Engagement

Empathy is a potential result of affect, a response that might arise from audience perception of narratives or images (Pence, 2004) and could be used in sharing personal narratives from scientists. Affect is an emotional response, either positive or negative, that plays a role in an audience’s reception to the story (Nabi, 2014). While affect has been a longstanding concept in psychological research, Slovic and colleagues developed the concept of the affect heuristic and the role of affect in judgments and decisions. Affect responses are automatic, rapid, efficient, and powerful in determining how an individual reacts to the information provided. The aspect of heuristic describes the existing risk perceptions for positive and negative concepts for that individual (2007). Simply, this affective response quickly determines what feels ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for the audience as they listen. In the context of scientists sharing stories with public audiences, they can consider the tone of their personal narrative and the expected emotional impact as related to their communications goals.

Suzanne Keen supports a theory of narrative empathy, described as the audience’s emotional connection to a character’s emotions and experiences. This technique can be employed by a storyteller to help the audience engage in the story. There are many other narrative choices that could be associated with promoting emotions, though more research is needed to create certainty (2006).

Visual communication can offer opportunities to connect with audiences in digital and social media spaces, leading to engagement (Adami and Jewitt, 2016; Bock, 2017; Nie, 2017; Russmann and Svensson, 2017), which may be an effective way to represent personal narratives. Visual narratives are associated with Green and Brock’s Transportation-Imagery model that describes the process of immersion and persuasion through narratives in visual forms (2002). In these digital spaces, information can be represented in multiple formats, explored in Richard Mayer’s studies on multimedia learning, which describe a viewer’s experience of incorporating images and words with internal perceptions that increases their understanding of the information (2002). Many complex internal processes are involved in this communication experience, that Mayer describes through cognitive theory associated with designing effective visual communication messages (2014).

Discussion of using visuals to communication science on social media is limited, yet Rigutto suggests that visuals have potential to engage viewers and explain scientific information in a compelling, simple way (2017). The ability for audiences to make meaning from these visuals is described by Jean Trumbo as visual literacy. Reliance on high visual literacy can be a challenging or detrimental task depending on the audience, and can limit the potency of information or, worse, cause misinterpretation. Trumbo provides a framework to segment this literacy into visual thinking (elaboration), visual learning (integration) and visual communication (expression) (Trumbo, 1999). By considering these elements, communicators may be able to optimize visual representations of scientific information for specific audiences. 

There is also potential for photo-sharing platforms such as Instagram to foster transportive and emotional response in publics. Lim and Childs applied transportation theory to address how photo narratives impacted audience engagement, interactivity, and immersion. Findings indicated that multiple narrative elements, such as character and context, were effective in transporting audiences and building relationships (Lim and Childs, 2020). 

Photographs can create a space for dialogue beyond the visual story contained in an image. Fairey and Orton describe the human relations tied to images, the meaning that people attribute to them, and the role that they play in social spaces. They suggest that emotions and feelings are as important as the context of the image itself, both for the creator and the viewer. Between two different parties, an image can provide numerous opportunities for dialogue to occur through sharing feelings, perspectives, reactions, and exploration (2019). In the context of science communication, researchers can present images to the public and create an open-ended space that allows for interaction of ideas and knowledge sharing.  

Conveying a scientist in photographs creates potential for the public to become familiar and invested in the topic at stake. In 1989, Jacobi and Schiele analyzed various forms and styles of portraits of scientists and expressed that certain choices impacted the representation of the scientist. Several images that the authors present capture a scientist at work in a lab, conveying a sense of focus, investment, and credibility. Posed images offer an opportunity for emotion and eye contact. Images taken in personal, intimate home settings convey the scientist as individuals, offering the chance for viewers to see the scientists for more than their work (Jacobi and Schiele, 1989). This opens the door to share the life of the scientist to strengthen the very topic they dedicate themselves to—that they are an individual with a history, a passion, and preferences. As the authors suggest, they are no longer untouchable, removed, stoic names from a research paper.

Photographs can be used to convey personal narratives and convey concepts such as resilience. Laurian Bowles captured photographs of female porters in Ghana to share their stories through imagery, particularly to combat the exploitative representation of their experiences through tourism imagery. The visual narratives helped the women to have ownership and support within highly emotional circumstances (Bowles, 2017). In other instances, participants can capture images that represent their experiences in the community to highlight and address social issues. This concept, known as photovoice, is well explored by Wang and Burris, who describe the process as effective in promoting representation of complex ideas, identity, and conversation (1997). In other studies of marginalized groups, photovoice allows participants to explore their own conditions and learn from each other instead of feeling observed (Graziano, 2004). This concept and the potential applications could be useful to scientists looking to share their personal narratives through images, as the process of capturing images could serve as a learning opportunity itself and serve to share perspectives with audiences.

A review of relevant literature provides details on the state of science communication, trust as a unifying factor, the engagement potential of narrative, applications for personal narrative, emotion and affect, and visual communication approaches for narratives. The literature from these disciplines suggests that the proposed workshop arrives at an intersection between well-grounded theoretical frameworks and modern perspectives spanning communications, media psychology, science communication research, and more. The inter-disciplinary nature of the literature on this topic, as well as the broader discussions of science communication, may engage participants from a range of backgrounds and foster their interest in determining how they may apply the concept of visual representation of personal narratives to their specific interests. For example, research on personal narrative construction in the field of nursing (Lea Gaydos, 2005) suggests that other disciplines may provide similar contexts for such interactions to occur. 

The subject of personal narratives in science communication remains a niche corner of literature, though it is suitably prefaced by a wealth of research on new approaches to science communication. Numerous studies are rooted in bridging gaps between researchers and audiences, breaking away from traditional isolationist and exclusivist perspectives, and promoting open, honest dialogues. As such, the subject of researchers sharing personal narratives aligns with the sentiment of these studies, though to a degree of specificity that warrants further empirical study. Ideally, the workshop proposed in this topic can foster interest in research towards this direction. 

While there is a myriad of supporting evidence for these subjects, questions arise about the applicability of several sections that may challenge the workshop development. Promoting transparency in science communication, for example, offers numerous benefits, yet strong historical perspectives cause for more examination about its utility. Rather than relying on subjects that require further research, the workshop will offer participants a cursory exploration of the potential applications and limitations of such topics. 

Using narrative in science communication is supported by current literature (ElShafie, 2018; Hecker et al., 2018; Dahlstrom, 2012; Downs, 2014; Martinez-Conde and Macknik, 2017) though this remains a challenging area of research. While more research in understanding the applications and scope of narratives in science communication is valuable, emphasis needs to be placed on the use of narrative to convey perspectives compared to information (scientific findings). This project, as personal narratives suggest, promotes the use of unique personal perspectives of scientists as a means of fostering openness and authenticity. This relies on the power of narrative, such as transportation, narrative empathy, and persuasion. With some authors expressing concern over the potential for narrative to ‘glorify’ or misrepresent science, it is important to clarify this distinction at a theoretical and practical level yet promote further discussion towards narrative applications.

This project is well informed by current literature to support a workshop grounded in strong principles associated with the topic area. Workshop modules guided by this research provide participants with a plethora of reference material and a diverse range of perspectives on why personal narratives may be a worthwhile endeavor within the current state of science communication. Additionally, workshop facilitators should be familiar with these studies to have an informed understanding of how the modules were created and the scope of research in the area.

This document features the literature that has informed the workshop concepts. Use the Pre-Workshop Concept document and Literature Review to learn more about the concepts; use this document to find and reference the original sources as needed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bauer, M. W. (2008). Paradigm Change for Science Communication: Commercial Science Needs a Critical Public. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New models, new practices, 7–25. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_1 

Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O’Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., … Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514  

Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004 

Fischhoff, B. (2018). Evaluating science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7670–7675. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805863115   

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press. 586.

Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. E. (2009). A Two-Step Flow of Influence?: Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate Change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008328797   

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041  

Seethaler, S., Evans, J. H., Gere, C., & Rajagopalan, R. M. (2019). Science, Values, and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Beyond the Deficit Model. Science Communication, 41(3), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019847484  

Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749  

Trench, B. (2008). Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119–135). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7  

Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & van Mil, M. H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports, 21(9), e51278. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278  

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election (Working Paper No. 23089). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23089  

Bates, S. R., Faulkner, W., Parry, S., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2010). “How do we know it’s not been done yet?!” Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/37.9.703  

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110  

Hagmann, D., Minson, J., & Tinsley, C. (2020). Personal Narratives Build Trust Across Ideological Divides. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sw7nz

Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097  

Liang, X., Su, L. Y.-F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Nealey, P., & Corley, E. A. (2014). Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550092  

Pulido, C. M., Ruiz-Eugenio, L., Redondo-Sama, G., & Villarejo-Carballido, B. (2020). A New Application of Social Impact in Social Media for Overcoming Fake News in Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072430  

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617  

Sbaffi, L., & Rowley, J. (2017). Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(6), e218. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7579  

Schultz, C. (2006). A trust framework model for situational contexts. 50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1501434.1501494  

Su, L. Y.-F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Science News Consumption Patterns and Their Implications for Public Understanding of Science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415 

Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776  

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2017). Preparing Scientists to Be Science Communicators. In P. G. Patrick (Ed.), Preparing Informal Science Educators: Perspectives from Science Communication and Education Springer International Publishing, 437–471.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50398-1_22  

Barnett, M., Anderson, J., Houle, M., Higginbotham, T., & Gatling, A. (2010). The Process of Trust Building Between University Researchers and Urban School Personnel. Urban Education, 45(5), 630–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377297  

Bennett, W. L., & Manheim, J. B. (2006). The One-Step Flow of Communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608(1), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206292266  

Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLOS Biology, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535  

Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012). Identifying the Essential Elements of Effective Science Communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627    

Bolton, B., & Young-Robertson, J. M. (2020). Humanizing Science by Building Bridges Through Shared Conversation—The Alaska Voices Project. American Geophysical Union.   

Canfield, K., & Menezes, S. (2020). The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island. 77. https://www.informalscience.org/state-inclusive-science-communication-landscape-study  

Choi, S. (2015). The Two-Step Flow of Communication in Twitter-Based Public Forums. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 696–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314556599 

Elliott, K. C. (2020). A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.21  

Feliu-Mojer, M. (2022). Advancing inclusion through culturally relevant science communication: A perspective from Puerto Rico. Journal of Science Communication, 21(7), C04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070304 

Grunig, J. E. (2013). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203812303   

Ho, T.-H., & Weigelt, K. (2005). Trust Building Among Strangers. Management Science, 51(4), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0350  

John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1410864  

Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Roper, E. (2017). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315126234  

Langan, L. M., Cheng, Y., & Hunka, A. D. (2019). Empirically Supported Out-of-the-Box Strategies for Science Communication by Environmental Scientists. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 15(4), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4145  

Lidskog, R. (1996). In Science We Trust? On the Relation Between Scientific Knowledge, Risk Consciousness and Public Trust. Acta Sociologica, 39(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939603900103  

Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication—More than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), Y01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050401   

Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core Skills for Effective Science Communication: A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate Science Education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573   

Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14102–14109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110   

Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., Maras, M. A., Burgoyne, S., Balakrishnan, B., Stemmle, J., & Schultz, J. C. (2018). Decoding Science: Development and Evaluation of a Science Communication Training Program Using a Triangulated Framework. Science Communication, 40(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747285    

Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do People Watch what they Do Not Trust?: Exploring the Association between News Media Skepticism and Exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371  

Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301  

Vazire, S. (2017). Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74  

Yuan, S., Oshita, T., AbiGhannam, N., Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Koh, H. E. (2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789  

Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186    

Cerrato, S., Daelli, V., Pertot, H., & Puccioni, O. (2018). The public-engaged scientists: Motivations, enablers and barriers. Research for All. https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.2.09 

Horst, M. (2013). A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513    

Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067660

Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009 

Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring Narrative Engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259  

Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111  

Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate Science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454597   

Davies, S. R., Halpern, M., Horst, M., Kirby, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). Science stories as culture: Experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201  

Downs, J. S. (2014). Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13627–13633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317502111  

ElShafie, S. J. (2018). Making Science Meaningful for Broad Audiences through Stories. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(6), 1213–1223. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy103  

Fisher, W. R. (1985). The Narrative Paradigm: In the Beginning. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb02974.x  

Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation Into Narrative Worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00317.x  

Green, M. C. (2008). Transportation Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiect058  

Hecker, S., Luckas, M., Brandt, M., Kikillus, H., Marenbach, I., Schiele, B., Sieber, A., van Vliet, A. J. H., Walz, U., & Wende, W. (2018). Stories can change the world – citizen science communication in practice. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Citizen Science, 445–462. UCL Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.37  

Jones, M. D., & Anderson Crow, D. (2017). How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories? Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0047-7  

Jones, M. D., & Peterson, H. (2017). Narrative Persuasion and Storytelling as Climate Communication Strategies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.384  

Martinez-Conde, S., & Macknik, S. L. (2017). Finding the plot in science storytelling in hopes of enhancing science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8127–8129. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711790114  

Riedlinger, M., Metcalfe, J., Baram-Tsabari, A., Entradas, M., Joubert, M., & Massarani, L. (2019). Telling stories in science communication: Case studies of scholar-practitioner collaboration. Journal of Science Communication, 18(5), Article 5.  

Dennett, D. (1992). The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity. 46. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev-ASEM.2013.v46.42862  

Lea Gaydos, H. (2005). Understanding personal narratives: An approach to practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03284.x  

Lumsden, D. (2013). Whole Life Narratives and the Self. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 20(1), 1-10. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/511266.  

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100  

McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3rd ed (pp. 242–262). The Guilford Press. 

McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative Identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233-238.    

Muindi, F. J., Ramachandran, L., & Tsai, J. W. (2020). Human Narratives in Science: The Power of Storytelling. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 26(3), 249–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2019.12.001  

Neeley, L., Barker, E., Bayer, S. R., Maktoufi, R., Wu, K. J., & Zaringhalam, M. (2020). Linking Scholarship and Practice: Narrative and Identity in Science. Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00035 

Keen, S. (2006). A Theory of Narrative Empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2006.0015   

Nabi, R. L. (2014). Emotion, Media, and Our Social World. In Media and Social Life, 13. Routledge.  

Pence, J. (2004). Narrative Emotion: Feeling, Form and Function. Journal of Narrative Theory, 34(3), 273–276. https://doi.org/10.1353/jnt.2005.0005  

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006  

Adami, E., & Jewitt, C. (2016). Special Issue: Social media and the visual. Visual Communication, 15(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357216644153  

Bock, M. A. (2017). Visual Communication Effects: Photography. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. American Cancer Society, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0141   

Bowles, L. R. (2017). Doing the Snap: Storytelling and Participatory Photography with Women Porters in Ghana. Visual Anthropology Review, 33(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/var.12129   

Fairey, T., & Orton, L. (2019). Photography as Dialogue. Photography and Culture, 12(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17514517.2019.1669992   

Graziano, K. (2004). The Power of Teaching and Learning with Documentary Photography and Storytelling: A Photovoice Case Study. 3881–3886. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/12081/   

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315–341). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.  

Jacobi, D., & Schiele, B. (1989). Scientific Imagery and Popularized Imagery: Differences and Similarities in the Photographic Portraits of Scientists. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 731–753.   

Lim, H., & Childs, M. (2020). Visual storytelling on Instagram: Branded photo narrative and the role of telepresence. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 14(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-09-2018-0115   

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6  

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed, 43–71. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005   

Nie, H. (2017). Research on Visual Communication Design under the Influence of Digital Media. International Conference on Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (SSAH 2017) 4.  

Rigutto, C. (2017). The landscape of online visual communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 16(02), C06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16020306

Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2017). Introduction to Visual Communication in the Age of Social Media: Conceptual, Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Media and Communication, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i4.1263   

Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual Literacy and Science Communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547099020004004  

Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309