Pro-Science, Anti-Science and Neutral Science in Online Videos on Climate Change, Vaccines and Nanotechnology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Science on YouTube: What user find when they search for climate science and climate manipulation
2016
Online video-sharing sites such as YouTube are very popular and also used by a lot of people to obtain knowledge and information, also on science, health and technology. Technically they could be valuable tools for the public communication of science and technology, but the users of YouTube are also confronted with conspiracy theories and erroneous and misleading information that deviates from scientific consensus views. This contribution details the results of a study that investigates what kind of information users find when they are searching for climate science and climate manipulation topics on YouTube and whether this information corresponds with or challenges scientific consensus views. An innovative methodological approach using the anonymization network Tor is introduced for drawing randomized samples of YouTube videos. This approach was used to select and examine a sample of 140 YouTube videos on climate topics.
Traditionally journalistic mass media and compulsory and informal science education were the main sources of citizens' knowledge about science, technology and medicine. The availability of new online media has changed the media and information infrastructure. The use of digital and social media for scientific practice and science communication and its impact on public perceptions of and citizens' knowledge about science, technology and medicine still need to be examined. From the point of view of scientific institutions the problem with social online media is that virtually everybody can post content there. There are no gatekeepers and hence no quality control is taking place. Social media websites must also be understood as social communities where conspiracies, false and potentially harmful and inaccurate information on scientific topics can be disseminated. However, they can also be powerful tools for disseminating useful and correct scientific information and to engage and involve citizens with and in scientific research. The research presented here is particularly interested in the role of online video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube, for the public communication of science. In many countries YouTube is the second most popular search engine after Google. Many citizens do use it as a source of information about issues concerning science, technology and medicine. In the presentation results from an empirical pilot study on climate science and climate manipulation on YouTube will be presented. The results indicate that YouTube can be a very valuable tool for informing citizens about science for some key issues. However, users of YouTube are also confronted with conspiracy theories and erroneous and misleading information that strongly deviates from scientific consensus views. Hence, the public communication and discussion of science via YouTube offers new opportunities but also faces serious and difficult challenges that should be addressed by combining science communication and (social) media research.
Frontiers in Communication, 2019
The online video-sharing website YouTube is extremely popular globally, also as a tool for information on science and environmental topics. However, only little is known about what kind of information users find when they are searching for information about climate science, climate change, and climate engineering on YouTube. This contribution presents results from an exploratory research project that investigates whether videos found on YouTube adhere to or challenge scientific consensus views. Ten search terms were employed to search for and analyze 200 videos about climate and climate modification topics, which are contested topics in online media. The online anonymization tool Tor has been used for the randomization of the sample and to avoid personalization of the results. A heuristic qualitative classification tool was set up to categorize the videos in the sample. Eighty-nine videos of the 200 videos in the sample are supporting scientific consensus views about anthropogenic climate change, and climate scientists are discussing climate topics with deniers of climate change in four videos in the sample. Unexpectedly, the majority of the videos in the sample (107 videos) supports worldviews that are opposing scientific consensus views: 16 videos deny anthropogenic climate change and 91 videos in the sample propagate straightforward conspiracy theories about climate engineering and climate change. Videos supporting the scientific mainstream view received only slightly more views (16,941,949 views in total) than those opposing the mainstream scientific position (16,939,655 views in total). Consequences for the public communication of climate change and climate engineering are discussed in the second part of the article. The research presented in this contribution is particularly interested in finding out more about strategically distorted communications about climate change and climate engineering in online environments and in critically analyzing them.
2016
The online video-sharing website YouTube has been a phenomenal success and growing rapidly since its launch in 2005. YouTube today is one of the most popular internet sites and also the second most popular search engine used after Google in many countries (Welbourne and Grant, 2015). According to the self-description of YouTube it has over a billion users, almost one-third of all people on the Internet (YouTube, 2016). The research presented in this contribution is particularly interested in the role of online video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube, for the public communication of science and technology. Many citizens do use YouTube as a source of information about issues concerning science, technology and medicine (Allgaier, 2016). Research has shown that high reading levels are required to comprehend web-based textual information on science, technology and medicine (e.g. Berland et al. 2001), and that might be a reason why many people prefer to use and watch YouTube videos in or...
Participatory culture and science communication. A content analysis of popular science on YouTube
In book: Nuevas formas de expresión en comunicaciónEdition: 1ªChapter: 19Publisher: McGraw-Hill EducationEditors: Carlos del Valle Rojas, Carmen Salgado Santamaría, 2017
Communicating science is emerging in the so-called ‘new media’, the media that have arisen thanks to the information and communication technologies that allow the digitization of contents. The most significant advance for global communication is the development of the Internet, which has changed the paradigm of public communication. In the new paradigm, the user is the center of an interactive communication process in real time (cf. Lister et al., 2009). In parallel, and perhaps closely related to technological change, Miller (2001) announced the end of the ‘deficit model’ in science communication and the inclusion of social participation1. In a more general context, new media have c nntributed significantly to the emergence of a new participatory culture. As predicted by Weigold (2004), Internet has dramatically changed the relationship among the actors involved in science communication. Firstly, the World Wide Web allows for direct communication among scientists and the general public, without the intermediation of the mass media. Secondly, it eliminates the limitations of time and space imposed by traditional media, which meant a relevant burden considering that science deals with large amounts of information. Thirdly, it allows employing multimedia statements combining texts, steady images and video.
Frontiers, 2022
In this Research Topic we are interested in the impact of online video-sharing on the public communication of science and the environment, but also on intra-scientific communication and practice. The online video format has great potential for science and environmental communication, but there are also potential problems and pitfalls that need to be reflected. We are interested in the role of online video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube, Vimeo and others, for the public communication of science and research. Production We are looking for various perspectives on the production of online videos, i.e. who creates and uploads videos with scientific and environmental contents and what are the intentions and purposes of these videos? What are the differences and similarities between professional, amateur, institutional and other actors who produce online videos? How do the different creators of videos about science and the environment legitimize themselves and what audiences do they want to reach and for what reasons? What are the differences in practices and intentions of journalists, YouTubers, scientists, scientific institutions and others when it comes to online video-sharing? Content Which scientific and environmental topics and what kinds of research and knowledge are represented in publicly available online videos and which are not? Are there certain scientific disciplines that use online videos for public and/ or intra-scientific communication more often than others? What kind of video formats, genres, videographic styles etc. are most successful, widespread and adequate for science and environmental communication? How can the quality of scientific online videos be assessed? What role do misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories play in online videos about scientific and environmental topics and what could be done to successfully counteract erroneous and problematic video content? Can differences concerning topics, frames or aesthetic aspects be found and analyzed, and if so how? What are the differences between the online videos of professional, amateur, institutional and other user/ producer cultures? Are there differences in the online videos from diverse geographical locations, languages and disciplinary communities? Audiences, reception and communities How are online videos on science and the environment perceived by various audiences? Do scientists and researchers also make use of the online-video format, and if so, how and why? How do different audiences make sense of the online videos they are watching and how do they affect perceptions, knowledge and attitudes? How do different users seek and find online videos about science and the environment and how do they assess the credibility of the videos? What communities emerge around specific video channels featuring science and environmental online videos and how do various audiences/ communities and video creators interact? What is the role of specific online video-sharing platforms for the dissemination, recommendation and practices of environmental and science communication via online video? Methodological innovations What quantitative, qualitative, computational and other methods could be used to study scientific and environmental online-videos and practices of online video-sharing? Practical perspectives We are also interested in perspectives of online video practitioners or researchers and others who experimented with online videos for science and environmental communication. We also welcome case studies and the experiences of science YouTubers and experience reports of exchanges with scientists, scientific institutions, journalists, filmmakers and others who use online videos for environmental and science communication. Keywords: Science Communication, Environmental Communication, Online Video, Video Platforms, YouTube, Vimeo, Public Understanding of Science, Science of Science Communication, Social Sciences, Media, Communications, Interdisciplinarity Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
Journalism
Fake science news is a type of fake news that can threaten the credibility of the scientific community. Scientists’ attention to fake science news can indirectly influence the way they react to tackling fake science news through socio-psychological factors. Applying the influence of presumed media influence (IPMI), this study examines how scientists’ attention to fake science news indirectly influences their support for initiatives to tackle fake science news through presumed harm of fake science news on other scientists and the general public, as well as their attitude and personal norm towards tackling fake science news. Specifically, this study explicates the behavioural outcome into support for education and support for legislation against fake science news. The results from a survey of 706 Singapore-based scientists supported the relationships posited in the IPMI. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Public Understanding of Science
The science on controversial topics is often heatedly discussed on social media, a potential problem for social-media-based science communicators. Therefore, two exploratory studies were performed to investigate the effects of science-critical user comments attacking Facebook posts containing scientific claims. The claims were about one of four controversial topics (homeopathy, genetically modified organisms, refugee crime, and childhood vaccinations). The user comments attacked the claims based on the thematic complexity, the employed research methods, the expertise, or the motivations of the researchers. The results reveal that prior attitudes determine judgments about the user comments, the attacked claims, and the source of the claim. After controlling for attitude, people agree most with thematic complexity comments, but the comments differ in their effect on perceived claim credibility only when the comments are made by experts. In addition, comments attacking researchers’ mot...
Background and Objectives: There is a need for effective strategies to communicate the benefits of vaccination to vaccine hesitant parents. Understanding how anti-vaccine advocates successfully persuade parents against vaccinating their children can provide insight into communication tactics that could be incorporated into vaccine promotion efforts. The internet is an important source of vaccine information for many parents, and plays a role informing vaccine hesitancy. To understand what might make anti-vaccine websites so convincing, we used persuasion theory as a lens to examine what information was being presented, and the persuasive tactics being used to communicate the information. Methods: We conducted a content analysis of 480 anti-vaccine websites. Four trained coders coded sites for the content of the vaccine information being presented, types of persuasive tactics used, and values and lifestyle norms associated with anti-vaccine advocacy. Results: Anti-vaccine websites contain a considerable amount of misinformation, most commonly that vaccines are dangerous, cause autism and brain injury. Websites used both scientific evidence and anecdotes to support these claims. Values such as choice, freedom and individuality were linked to anti-vaccine beliefs. The most commonly co-promoted behaviors included the use of alternative medicine and homeopathy, and eating a healthy or organic diet. Conclusions: Anti-vaccine websites use a battery of effective persuasive techniques to forward their agenda. The use of similar persuasive techniques and tapping into parents’ values and lifestyles are potentially useful strategies for vaccine promotion communication.