Approaching Science Communication: A case study of successful communicators

This is a speech to be presented to a group of University students or postgraduates who wish to

pursue a career in science communication. It could be just a public workshop that they could
attend. It is assumed that the students have done communications studies and are familiar with
theory. I will argue that science communications needs to be undertaken using different styles
and communication techniques in order to reach the broader community. I will use Michael
Stevens from YouTube channel Vsauce and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki as case studies for style
comparisons.
As social networking and cultural platforms gain momentum as viable media outlets for
professional and amateur communicators alike, the landscape of journalism is shifting. Popular
science communication in particular is taking on new form, and that is something that we as
science communicators really need to consider in order to be successful. Today I will be
discussing two figures in the science communication industry: National Living Treasure Dr Karl
Kruszelnicki, and Michael Stevens, presenter of YouTube Channel Vsauce 1. Both of these men
have earned a reputation of legitimacy and personality as science commentators, however both
have achieved this through different means. As current or future science communicators, it is
worthwhile to deconstruct what role these figures play in the distribution of popular science, and
the methods they incorporate.
First of all, I think it is important to compare the background of these figures. Kruszelnicki has a
rich academic background with degrees in physics, mathematics, biomedical engineering,
medicine and surgery, and has studied and been a researcher in many more scientific fields2. To
date, he has hosted a number of science television and radio programs, and regularly appears on
programs such as Sunrise and Triple J. Stevens, on the other hand, has only completed degrees in
Psychology and English Language and Literature, and has been working in Content Strategy
for YouTube and Google as of 2011. The important thing about this comparison, and the reason
why I have chosen these two communicators as cases for you as science communicators to
consider, is the distinct difference in their scientific experience and approaches to science
communication.
Treise and Weigold (2002) reported that many contemporary scholars in science communication
believe that science is not effectively communicated to the public. They propose that this may be
because those who cover science frequently lack anything more than a basic scientific
background or a background in social sciences. It seems to be the case that in todays science
communication industry, the ability to engage an audience is just as important, if not more, than
the scientific experience of the presenter. However, popularizing science is quite a controversial
1 Vsauce can be accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/user/vsauce
2 For more background see: http://www.drkarl.com/home/

topic in the science communication industry. Phillips (2001) argues that most science
communicators think that science has to be sold to the public by making it sexy and cool,
when instead it should be presented on its own merits warts and all. The main argument I want
to make today is that I dont think that it should solely be presented one way or the other, rather a
multilayered approach is needed to reach different audiences. Similarily, Nolch (2001) argues
that science communicators should broadcast in their own unique styles.
To put this into context of the Stevens and Kruszelnicki case, both of them construct different
representations of science and identities for themselves in order to communicate effectively.
Stevens is often very relaxed and conversational, presenting science as intriguing and cool.
Kruszelnicki on the other hand always presents a typically geeky science, branding himself
with colourful shirts and childish excitement. Both of them have earned legitimacy and power
through their different styles, but what is interesting in Stevens case is that the media work he
has done has caused him to become a scientific authority as well3. Kruszelnicki is also a
scientific authority (hosting science shows and a regular guest on Channel Sevens Sunrise), but
predominantly due to his scientific expertise. The important thing to consider about this is that
science communicators can often called upon to provide legitimacy to hegemonic groups, and it
is thus important to think about how media rituals are fundamental to a science communicators
work.
Science and journalism are governed by different values for knowledge that is important and
complete. Journalism values a short-term focus for communication, with the most influential
stories being given priority. Friedman (1986) argues similar, acknowledging that a reporter who
breaks a story is given more credit than one that follows it up more comprehensively. Thus the
media rituals surrounding the production of science journalism are often pressured to become
decentered, as the prime institutional sources cannot always give the story enough weight. This is
something that could be seen as detrimental to science communication, as scientific discoveries
often only progress over a period of time and many scientific advances do not carry a lot of
weight in practical terms. However, new media platforms for science communication are giving
this broad sourcing of information viability.
To put this into context with our science communicators - while Kruszelnicki predominantly
relies on his own scientific background or institutional sources for information, Stevens very
effectively utilizes the YouTube platform to compile information on a topic from numerous
videos that come from both institutional and non-institutional backgrounds. The success of this
technique can be seen in Stevens viewership over 100 million total video views and over half
a million channel subscribers. Although this method may be effective in making the information
accessible and digestible, the study by Treise and Weigold (2002) found that many science
communication professionals have concerns that internet based methods of science presentation
3 Recruited by YouTubes SpaceLab project to answer questions:
http://www.youtube.com/user/spacelab/videos

do not carry enough credibility, as many decentered sources are not peer reviewed. Stevens has
shown how effective decentered media rituals can be in science communication, however I think
it is vitally important to assess the credibility of these sources at the stake of your own.
Treise and Weigold (2002) identify that another reason why science communication is not as
effective as it could be is that most of the broader public are scientifically illiterate when it
comes to many issues being communicated. While it is the communicators job to produce a
level of literacy in their audience, I think that often it is easy for the audience to fall out of
alignment with the communicators wavelength. Additionally, not all levels of understanding
within the public can be spoken to simultaneously. This is why I would argue that interactivity
plays such an important role in science communication. It allows synergy between the teaching
of the communicator and the learning of the audience. The media work that Stevens conducts is
more than just producing content, its also about managing media as a social process and
facilitating his platform as an interactive social space. His videos contain diverse links that
people can choose to follow or not depending on their interest and literacy in the topic. Even
after the video is finished, he facilitates discussion in the comments and answers questions. In a
study of internet-based interactivity, Tremayne and Dunwoody (2001) found evidence that more
interactive internet websites resulted in greater content recall by users. Kuszelnicki does utilise
elements of interactivity in his media work, such as his regular talkback radio show on Triple J,
however he does not have anywhere near the same audience presence on YouTube or social
networking sites.
This relates back to my argument, and that made by Nolch (2001), that science communication
needs to tackle the public through different means in order to reach different layers of the
community. While Stevens and Vsauce may be very effective when it comes to engaging
YouTube users (typically teenagers and young adults), they are lacking when it comes to younger
or older audiences. On the contrary, Kruszelnickis geeky scientist persona can communicate
very well with young children as well as older audiences. In order to be successful as a science
communicator, I think it is vital to establish an identity, an audience and a platform and to focus
on that field, as a multilayered approach to science communication would be more effective than
aligning it to one style.

References
Friedman, S. (1986). The journalists world. In Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L.
(Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp.17-41). New York: Free Press.
Nolch, G. (2001). Australasian Science Editorial. Australasian Science, 22(6), 2.
Phillips, S. (2001). Science communication, warts-and-all. Australasian Science, 22(6), 42-43.
Treise, D. and Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing Science Communication: A survey of Science
Communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.