We are experts in evidence-based content, yet we choose our communication strategies by chance. This is the paradox that evidence-based science communication can solve.
Every scientist should communicate science in one way or another. Not necessarily in a professional context, but at least to share the intricacies of science with a broader audience.
This ability has become even more critical today, as communicating science goes beyond merely promoting science by showcasing fluorescent cells, endlessly rotating DNA molecules, and blue liquids in beakers. Today’s scientists and science communicators can, to some extent, influence public engagement, scientific literacy, and decision-making.
The question is, how do we communicate science? And truth be told, more often than not, we tend to go on personal preferences. Humor, videos, presentation, music, or dry scientific content. We choose style and format depending on our current interests and personalities, or simply by copying current trends.
That’s strange in a way. As science writers (including scientific and medical communicators), we are experts in evidence-based content. We handle clinical data, research reports, and protocols with precision and accuracy. But when it comes to the strategy of communication, the “how” and “why”, we choose certain narrative styles, formats, or channels almost by chance and leave the evidence behind.
After all, how do we know that we’re getting our message across, considering humans, cultures, and psychology are complex and dynamic?
The good news is that we can continue to apply that same rigorous, evidence-based mindset beyond research and to the act of communication itself. It’s called evidence-based science communication.
What is evidence-based science communication?
When leading science communication experts Eric Jensen and Alexander Gerber coined the concept of evidence-based science communication in 2020, they drew inspiration from evidence-based medicine. They proposed adopting the latter’s definition, as outlined in the article “Evidence-Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn’t.”
“In practice, evidence-based science communication involves combining professional expertise and skills with the best available evidence from systematic research, underpinned by established theory.”
This model, as Jensen and Gerber outline, rests on three essential pillars: 1) our own professional expertise and communication skills, 2) the best available evidence from research, and 3) established theory from fields like social science and psychology.
To bridge the double disconnect, they propose a roadmap of 12 actions, which range from individual practices, such as using evidence, to systemic changes, including building collaboration between researchers and practitioners and advocating for evidence-based funding. This highlights that evidence-based science communication is both a personal practice and a field-wide shift.
Evidence-based science communication becomes a two-way exercise where science communication researchers learn from science communication practitioners, and vice versa. A mutually beneficial bridge between these two disciplines works as a positive feedback loop. Both learn from each other to optimize the goals and outcomes of communicating science.
The problem is that researchers and practitioners largely ignore each other’s work and needs. The authors refer to this phenomenon as a “double-disconnect”, which challenges every step of getting knowledge from research to practice.
The “double-disconnect” & the knowledge cascade
Research information must successfully pass through a “knowledge cascade” before we can apply it to improve practice. This cascade consists of four key steps:
- Relevance: The evidence must speak to the actual challenges communicators face.
- Accessibility: Practitioners must be able to find and understand it easily.
- Transferability: The findings must be applicable in real-world settings, not just in theory.
- Quality: The evidence itself must be robust and trustworthy.
The double disconnect between research and practice begins with a lack of communication, according to Jensen and Gerber. From the lack of researchers’ understanding of practitioners’ needs to the practitioners’ inability to find the proper information, any break at any step of the knowledge cascade results in suboptimal science communication.
Relevance:
Research: Research fails to address the practical, real-world use of its research.
Practice: Practitioners are unaware that relevant evidence for their specific challenge even exists.
Accessibility:
Research: Vital evidence is locked behind journal paywalls and is mostly in English, which causes issues for non-English-speaking practitioners.
Practice: Practitioners cannot find or access the research they need, even when they look for it. Too much research.
Transferability:
Research: Studies offer abstract and academic findings without providing practical tools or guidelines for implementation.
Practice: Practitioners find research too theoretical and don’t know how to apply the findings to their work.
Quality
Research: Methodologically weak studies are published and treated as robust evidence.
Practice: Practitioners lack the training to distinguish high-quality evidence from unreliable anecdotes.
If any step in this cascade fails, valuable research stays stuck in journals instead of improving communication in practice.
We need a sturdier bridge between research and practice. This interconnection is especially critical as science communication becomes increasingly essential for the general public.
Most of the online science-related debates are intertwined with political, social, and even philosophical arguments. We discuss vaccine-related decision-making, the broad implementation of AI technologies, and the climate. These discussions are rooted in value judgments where everyone feels entitled to an opinion. Since these topics directly relate to public well-being, we need sound science communication that invites and engages non-scientists. Effective science communication becomes especially crucial in our current media landscape, characterized by overwhelming amounts of information, some misinformation, and a general chronic lack of attention.
Besides providing our audiences with reliable and accurate information, these times require science information to fulfill its purpose. Whether it’s to inform, educate, integrate, entertain, or persuade, we have intentions. Think about it, for each intention, we also have different effective approaches. It’s a complex mess, but that’s precisely why we need evidence-based science communication. It helps us target the correct information to the correct audience.
Evidence-based science communication in action
Evidence-based science communication pushes us to move beyond “what feels right” and test our assumptions. Adopting this evidence-based approach helps us weld the double-disconnect shut and, consequently, increase the probability of scientific information actually reaching and impacting audiences.
Let’s look at two examples where evidence can fundamentally influence how we approach our writing. I’ve written about these and will link the examples under each section.
The infotainment trade-off
Many of us are drawn to science communication by engaging, humorous content. However, evidence suggests this intuitive approach can backfire.
A study led by Dr. Lloyd S. Davis highlights this risk. Researchers showed one of two nearly identical videos on climate change to 643 participants. The videos differed only in their narration: one was a documentary-style (expository) narration, the other used an infotainment style (featuring humor, personalized storytelling, and a relatable presenter).
The researchers found that infotainment videos made younger participants with less formal education rate climate change as less serious for the planet compared with those who saw the documentary-style video.
Although humor can grab attention and introduce audiences to science, it can also undermine the perceived seriousness of a serious or urgent message. Evidence helps us move beyond a one-size-fits-all use of entertainment and make strategic choices about tone.
Read the article: Science infotainment and the hidden cost of making science fun.
Rethinking the “default” calls to action
In topics like climate change, we often focus on individual responsibility. We urge people to recycle, drive less, or conserve energy. But does the evidence on emissions support this focus?
The “Carbon Majors” report found that just 100 fossil fuel companies are responsible for 71% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. This evidence forces us to ask critical questions. Who are the real climate thieves, and how much of an impact can we make by merely speaking about responsible living?
If our goal is to drive the most impactful change, we’d need to consider collective and systemic changes in societies, especially in the Global North. A more realistic finger would be waving towards the big companies, oligarchs, and political actors. This isn’t to say that individual actions are meaningless. Still, evidence shows us who the most effective target for our message is, making sure that our calls to action are realistic.
Evidence can inform not just how we communicate, but what we choose to communicate about. It motivates us to design messages that address the root causes of problems, rather than just their symptoms.
Read the article: The elephant in the climate room? Your reusable cup is a distraction.
Missing the reasons behind science storytelling
We can even apply the same evidence-based approach to our most beloved tools, such as storytelling. Narratives are excellent for building understanding and engagement, particularly in a storytelling-rich media landscape. But we know they can compromise nuance and objectivity for emotional impact. Evidence-based science communication can highlight its function as a strategic compromise for attention, as well as its strengths and limitations.
Read the article: Science storytelling isn’t just campfires—It’s mass media, ethics, and influence
How can evidence-based science communication improve communication?
As I often say, we invest in science communication by adding quality. Whatever we optimize today will benefit tomorrow’s practice.
Implementing evidence-based science communication can improve our ability to reach our objectives as content creators. Whether we want to educate, invite, or persuade our audiences, we should adopt intentional approaches; approaches that address our individual and collective nuances. It aligns with curiosity, motivating us to read papers outside of our bubbles and learn about psychological theories on how readers interpret information.
Evidence-based science communication pushes us to collaborate with other scientists, such as those in the field of social science. Practitioners have the practical problems; researchers have the methodological tools.
Another aspect of implementing evidence-based approaches and making science communication more scientific is to reintroduce critical thinking into our practices. This can be achieved by starting or joining journal clubs, analyzing research and content in the field, or as simple as critiquing other people’s work, such as this one. (You can read more about starting a science communication club here.)
Finally, as we become more versed in evidence-based science communication, we share the knowledge with others. The practice of writing has the added advantage of improving our understanding of the topic. Look, evidence-based science communication isn’t a new set of rules or a killer of creativity. It’s about applying the same critical, evidence-driven approach that some of us used in our research. I’m still learning from it and expect to be learning for quite some time. Thanks!
