Reshaping Public Science: Scientific Communication Through Podcasts
Introduction
The scientific process is complex and timely, therefore, the scientific knowledge published in research papers is usually a work in progress that involves many uncertain factors (National Academies of Sciences, et al., 2017). This characteristic of uncertainty can make it difficult to communicate new scientific findings to the public as it takes a particular level of understanding to gauge this uncertainty and interpret what findings should be produced as knowledge. The challenge of dealing with this uncertainty has been observed in many genres. For instance, news reports will often exaggerate the findings from a research article to make it seem more certain than it is (Bray, 2019, p. 160). This can result in the spreading of misinformation about relevant societal issues. While being a new genre within academia, podcasts could be a valuable way to navigate the uncertainty in scientific communication to the public. The informal conversation style interview between the mediator and expert may allow for the efficient communication of complex findings to the audience while being relatable and relevant to listen to (Woods and Wood, 2023).
In this paper, two scientific podcast episodes are analyzed. The first is from Ologies by Allie Ward named “Molecular Neurobiology (BRAIN CHEMICALS) with Dr. Crystal Dilworth” where Allie and Crystal talk about neurotransmitters in our brain in relation to our moods and behaviors. The second podcast is from Science Vs named “Caffeine: How Much is Too Much?” where the hosts Rose Rimler and Wendy Zuckerberg clear up the confusion about the molecular mechanism of caffeine in the body and the effects of drinking caffeine regularly. Both of these podcasts are intended for the general public and follow a similar format where the mediator communicates with both the researcher and the public through the interview(s). The informal conversation style of the podcasts may establish trust and thus, the expertise of the researcher by the public through emphasizing relatability. In terms of knowledge production, the flexibility of podcasts as a genre has the potential to make scientific knowledge more accessible and inclusive of all individuals and communities. In this paper, the two podcast episodes will be used as examples for the analysis of the rhetorical aspects of podcasts in relation to scientific communication.
Analysis and Discussion
Questioning the Requirements of Genre
Both of the podcast episodes follow a format that involves the mediator(s) engaging in an informal conversation with both the scientific researchers and the public. The Science Vs podcast involves a discussion between the two mediators in which they debrief and discuss the topic based on the interviews they had with the scientific researchers. In contrast, the Ologies podcast involves a discussion between the host and the scientific researcher directly. Throughout the podcast, the host, Allie Ward will interrupt the discussion to expand on or clarify particular jargon that the researcher uses within speech. Through this conversation format, the information is forced to be remediated twice, once by the researcher and a second time by the mediator. This ensures efficient simplification of the scientific processes and jargon for the public.
Podcasts are a relatively new platform for the communication of academic research and thus, there is flexibility in the organization and format of the episodes. There are noticeable differences even between the two podcast episodes that were analyzed in this paper. This extent of flexibility makes podcasts unique from other genres. While Paré (2002) acknowledges the flexibility within some genres, it is clear that they still contain consistent patterns that aim to achieve a specific purpose. This contradicts with the ability of podcasts to have versatile functions for both academic and non-academic topics. However, there is still debate over whether the genre of podcasts should be accepted as a credible source of knowledge production (Woods and Wood, 2023) likely due to this freedom in format. As Bagele (2020) explains, research is a “systematic strategy” that we as a society have come to accept as the norm for knowledge production. We deem research articles as credible sources of knowledge as they follow a stringent set of requirements that were developed from the criteria of Euro-Western society (Bagele, 2020). Podcasts, therefore, serve as an opportunity for the inclusion of ideologies from other communities and societies due to the flexibility of the genre. Especially within the conversation format where the information gets remediated twice to the audience, the concern that we only hear one perspective or story to shape our perceptions of the world can be avoided (Adichie, 2009). Therefore, the mediator has the potential to play a very important role in shaping the format of the podcast to fight against the systemic ideologies that we currently use to characterize genres and to use their voice to represent a different perspective in the way that knowledge is communicated and perceived among society.
Establishing Expertise Among the Public Eye
The mediators of the podcasts talk informally and involve elements of humor and relatability in their speech. This makes the episodes easy to listen to while also being informative. The mediators refrain from using scientific jargon in conversation and instead, explain the processes and terms using analogies. For instance, in the Ologies podcast, Allie refers to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine as the “text messages” of the brain. It was noticed that throughout the interview, the scientific researcher also began to adapt the use of analogies in her speech as she referred to neurotransmitters in the brain as an “orchestra” all working together. Thus, the mediator set the tone for the style of conversation that the researcher adopted throughout the interview. In addition to scientific content, the mediator asks the scientific expert personal questions concerning their life experiences and hobbies they enjoy doing outside of research. This introduces an aspect of relatability of the science expert to the public.
This informal and personable nature of the podcast episodes plays an important role in building the expertise of the scientific researchers who are being interviewed. The practice of expertise is a balance of knowledge, skill, and trust from the audience (Mehlenbacher, 2022). While knowledge and skill can be represented through academic credentials such as a PhD or involvement within a particular research group, trust is the more complex factor of expertise that is audience-dependent. More now than ever, the trust of the scientific community by the public has been questioned (Goldenberg, et al, 2023). Thus, making it necessary to determine the characteristics that the public values to make their decision of whether or not to trust an expert. The public not only cares about the academic credentials of the scientists, but they consider the character of the individual and use that to form their best judgment of character and credibility (Goldenberg, et al, 2023). Therefore, through the use of informal conversation, humor, and relatability, the scientific expert is gaining the trust of the public by portraying themselves as being morally reliable while still knowledgeable of the topic. In addition, the Ologies podcast episode makes use of analogies to simplify scientific concepts for the understanding of the public. This understanding makes the public feel more involved within the conversation of science, thus enabling them to ask questions that may be required to gain their trust. These factors ultimately contribute to the expertise of the researcher in the eyes of the public.
Using Public Engagement to Clear Misconceptions
The episodes put science in the context of society and aim to clarify misconceptions and confusion regarding the topic. The Science Vs podcast often references information that has been popularized in the media and uses scientific evidence to explain what is known about the topic. The Ologies podcast includes a segment at the end of the episode where the host gathers and communicates the questions the audience has about the topic to the scientific researcher who is being interviewed. This adds an element of public engagement and directly addresses the confusion that the audience has.
The role of the mediator in podcasts is significant as this provides a voice for the public. The mediator speaks on behalf of the public by bringing up the relevant misconceptions and confusions observed in society or by addressing the comments of their audience directly in the case of the Ologies episode. Public engagement as a form of communication is beneficial for both the public and the scientific community. The participation of the public in the conversation of science works to clear misconceptions and confusion while making the scientific process more transparent within society (National Academies of Sciences, et al., 2017). The involvement of the public in scientific conversations can contribute to the inclusivity and accessibility of scientific knowledge production as a whole thus, making the process more democratic (National Academies of Sciences, et al., 2017).
Conclusion
This analysis demonstrates the potential for podcasts to be used for efficient scientific communication to the public. The two podcast episodes were significant for this analysis as they come from popular podcasting channels, they are intended for the general public, and they follow a mediator-to-researcher format. Through the analysis, it was found that the freedom of podcasts as a genre can work to push back against the institutionalized ideologies that stem from Euro-Western culture. This can be facilitated by the mediator by offering a multitude of perspectives within the interview. However, a limitation of this finding is that knowledge production via scientific podcasts is based on the findings from academic research papers – a genre built from a history of colonization and oppression (Bagele, 2020). Therefore, it will be important to continue to find and implement strategies to decolonize the research process itself. In addition, it was found that through elements of humor and relatability, scientific researchers can establish expertise among the public as this builds trust that deems the researcher as morally responsible. Gaining of trust is significant as it ensures that expert opinions are accepted and validated among the general public. Lastly, it was shown that through the incorporation of public engagement, scientific misconceptions can be clarified. This engagement is also significant for the scientific community as a whole as it points out the areas within science that are currently not being communicated properly or those that the public is the most unsure or concerned about. These findings demonstrate the potential for podcasts to be used as an efficient means of scientific communication to the public. Further analyses should consider a larger scale of podcast episodes with diverse forms and organization.
