Research makes science communication more intentional, trustworthy, and engaging.
Over the past few decades, scientific literacy has become an integral part of decision-making, and by extension, an advantage for those who wish to participate in societal discussions. Today’s scientists and science communicators influence public engagement, democratization of the discourse, and scientific trust. Evidence-based science communication can influence how people approach scientific knowledge, ultimately benefiting society.
Sign up for news, tips, and special offers related to science and communication!
Science communicators tend to rely on personal preferences when deciding how to disseminate science to their audiences. It’s common to choose style and format based on current interests and personalities, or simply by copying trends.
Evidence-based science communication makes the approach more intentional by bridging the gap between science communication research and practice. It helps the science communicator clarify the “how” and “why” of writing strategies. Inspired by evidence-based medicine, leading science communication experts Eric Jensen and Alexander Gerber coined the concept of evidence-based science communication in 2020. They proposed adopting the definition of evidence-based medicine, as outlined in the article “Evidence-Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn’t,” to benefit science communication.
“In practice, evidence-based science communication involves combining professional expertise and skills with the best available evidence from systematic research, underpinned by established theory.”
Jensen and Gerber’s outlined model rests on three essential pillars:
Evidence-based science communication aims to bridge the gap between research and practice, two areas that often operate in isolation from one another. To connect the two, Jensen and Gerber propose a roadmap of 12 action points. These 12 points range from individual practices, such as using evidence, to more systemic changes like improving collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In other words, they represent both a personal and a systemic shift from the current state of content creation.
This mutually beneficial two-way exercise motivates science communication researchers to learn from practitioners, and vice versa. A positive feedback loop between the two motivates them to learn from each other and optimize goals and outcomes that benefit scientific knowledge.
One of the problems in science communication 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 between research and practice begins with a lack of communication, according to Jensen and Gerber.
Research information must pass through a four-step “knowledge cascade” before it can serve to improve practice:
The knowledge cascade can be described as a dialogue between disciplines: Researchers understand practitioners’ needs, and practitioners have access to the most relevant findings. A break at any step of the knowledge cascade results in suboptimal science communication.
Research: Research fails to address the practical, real-world use of its research findings.
Practice: Practitioners fail to communicate their practical challenges or needs to researchers.
Research: Journal paywalls and the prominence of English literature restrict access to evidence for professionals with limited budgets or non-English-speaking practitioners.
Practice: Practitioners rarely document or share their evidence or experience in accessible ways.
Research: Research studies offer abstract and academic findings without providing practical tools or guidelines for implementation.
Practice: Practitioners often adapt or reinvent communication strategies without systematically evaluating or publishing what works.
Research: Research studies are sometimes methodologically weak but are treated as robust evidence.
Practice: Practitioners rely on anecdotal experience or marketing-style metrics without sharing rigorous evaluations.
If any step in this cascade fails, valuable research stays stuck in journals instead of improving communication in practice.
How can this concept be applied in real life? Let’s look at a few cases where evidence has reshaped how we think about science communication.
Regardless of whether science communicators inform, educate, evaluate, entertain, or persuade, scientific content must be intentional. Since each intention requires a dedicated approach, evidence-based science communication can guide communicators in applying optimal approaches. For example, it can help writers target suitable formats or arguments to specific audiences, expose nuances in scientific discourses, or create clear, engaging, and trustworthy content in general.
Evidence-based science communication pushes writing beyond feeling and challenges our intuitive assumptions. Adopting this evidence-based approach helps us bridge (or weld) the double-disconnect, increasing the likelihood that scientific information truly reaches and impacts audiences.
Humor can effectively reach diverse audiences, and many science communicators incorporate it into their content creation. However, evidence suggests this intuitive approach can backfire.
A study led by Dr. Lloyd S. Davis highlights the risk of using humor or so-called infotainment to inform about climate problems. 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.
Climate communication often focuses on individual responsibility. News pieces emphasize the importance of recycling, driving less, and conserving energy. However, does research support a focus on the individual to achieve objectives that improve the climate, and what specific goals do we even consider when writing?
Available data and statistics can help climate communicators avoid misdirecting the burden and propose realistic and intentional calls to action.
Examining reported numbers reveals the true relationships and responsibilities in climate-related issues. Evidence shows us who the most effective target for our message is, making sure that our calls to action are realistic. Realistic calls to action ultimately achieve a final objective, such as preventing climate catastrophes.
Evidence can inform not just how content creators communicate, but also about what we choose to communicate. It motivates us to design messages that address the root causes of problems, rather than just their symptoms.
The same evidence-based approach applies to our most beloved tools, such as storytelling. Narratives are excellent for building understanding and engagement, particularly in a storytelling-rich media landscape. But they can sometimes compromise nuance and objectivity in favor of emotional impact. Applying evidence-based science communication can help assess its strengths and weaknesses in the real world
Many science-related debates intertwine science, political, ideological, and even philosophical arguments. For example, scientific discussions about vaccine-related decision-making, the broad implementation of AI technologies, and climate change also include personal opinions or value judgments.
Evidence-based science communication and the philosophy of science can help science communicators distinguish between different types of opinions and their use of empirical or value-based judgements. Science communicators may inevitably integrate both empirical arguments and value-based claims in their discourse, but, depending on their objectives, the balance between the two may shift. Knowing this can help communicators sift through the dense space of expert opinions and communicate according to the temporal needs.
Science communication is an investment. Today’s improvements mark tomorrow’s science communicators’ skills and, consequently, an increased scientific literacy.
Implementing evidence-based science communication can improve content creators’ ability to achieve their objectives. Whether it’s to educate, invite, or persuade audiences, intention should lead the way; hopefully intentions that address individual and collective needs. Evidence-based science communication 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 collaboration with—and between—scientists from different disciplines. 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.
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 scientists use in research. Try it.
Prescribing evidence-based science communication for more impact
From whacking moles to building better science communication
The curse of knowledge: why experts lose their audience
Smart jargon makes the incomplete complete
The science events few people attend, and how to make science communication more inclusive
I enjoy creating content, but researching and writing take time and money. If you appreciate what I do, please consider supporting me on Ko-fi. Your support, no matter how big or small, helps me maintain the website and enhance the content. It also keeps me motivated to continue creating. If you’d like to help, click on the Ko-fi button below. Thank you!
Santiago Gisler is a communicator and coach with years of experience in evidence-based science communication, distilling complex scientific information into clear, engaging, and impactful content. He mentors and coaches communicators, helping them strengthen their projects and content creation skills. Background: Santiago has PhD in cancer research and molecular genetics, which informs his nuanced understanding of science communication.
Do you want to get in touch? Contact Ivory Embassy. Questions, collaboration requests, topic suggestions, and affection are all welcomed. Start by connecting with us through our social media accounts:
