Thematic Analysis of How Scientists Are Perceived in Newspaper Articles About Contested Science and in the Associated Comments Sections
Katrine Kergrohen Donois- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Neurology (clinical)
- Developmental Neuroscience
- Health Policy
- Epidemiology
Abstract
Background
In recent years, societal polarization over contested science has reached worrisome levels despite receiving much attention from researchers working in different fields spanning from neuroscience to journalism. In an attempt to understand the dynamics of polarization, much research focuses on media discourse. However, the newspapers’ comment sections (in which readers react) remain unexplored Thus, this study differs in that it argues that though the media may tell us what to think about, online commentators are telling us how to think about it.
Method
Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify themes in 84 articles (all mentioning contested science of climate change, GMOs, or vaccines) and the associated comments sections (a total of 25.121 comments).
Result
Four themes were identified, and they suggest that there are commonalities or patterns in the discourse surrounding contested science topics and in how scientists (or experts) are perceived across different fields. Understanding this pattern will help guide future communication strategies.
Conclusion
Scientists are used by those for or against GMOs, vaccination, or climate change. For example, expert knowledge is drawn upon to strengthen, support, and serve as evidence for claims by journalists and commentators. However, people who distrust experts are not all advocates for misinformation or conspiracy theorists; some have (what they express as) legitimate grievances and worries. This study suggests ways for experts to improve science communication by taking the latter into account.