Science Journalism has been through a huge transition period in the past two decades as digital outlets compete with print media — and that transition is continuing. It’s left many science journalists unsure of their place in this new ecosystem and unsure of how best to use the new toolsthey have been presented with, such as social media. Now is an important time for training in this sector to ensure that journalists — and the publications they work for — can find their place again. There is also a real need for training for new writers — to bridge the gap between their degree and their first job as a journalist

Ridgway, A I

English

UWE Bristol Research Repository

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: EVOLUTION, COMPLEXITY ANDVARIETY OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION TRAINING NEEDSHow training can fix the existential crisis in sciencejournalismAndy RidgwayScience Journalism has been through a huge transition period in the pasttwo decades as digital outlets compete with print media — and thattransition is continuing. It’s left many science journalists unsure of theirplace in this new ecosystem and unsure of how best to use the new toolsthey have been presented with, such as social media. Now is an importanttime for training in this sector to ensure that journalists — and thepublications they work for — can find their place again. There is also a realneed for training for new writers — to bridge the gap between their degreeand their first job as a journalist.AbstractProfessionalism, professional development and training in sciencecommunication; Science and media; Science writingKeywordsThere is perhaps no field of science communication that has been affected more bythe rise of the internet than science journalism. Just two decades ago, when manyof today’s writers were starting their careers, anyone wishing to write about sciencefor a popular audience had three main options: work as a newspaper sciencecorrespondent, write for a science magazine, or write a book. That was it. Today’swriters have many more options, writing for digital-only outlets like IFL Scienceand BuzzFeed and the digital outputs of existing media. This transition online is areflection of what has happened in journalism as a whole. Thurman, Cornia andKunert [2016] estimate that there are now 30,000 journalists in the UK workingwholly or partially online.But science writers also face new competition from scientists themselves, as well asreaders, professionals and amateurs who are “simultaneously science contentproducers and audiences.” [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011]. This competition has led todeclining circulations and contractions in the number of editorial staff onpublications. At the same time, the remaining staff are having to work in newways. They have a new toolkit to use — social media platforms, bloggingplatforms, website content management systems, to name a few. The digitalrevolution has also changed the way science is communicated from being one-waytraffic from writer to reader, to a “pluralistic, participatory and social” exchange ofstories and opinions [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011].Comment Journal of Science Communication 15(04)(2016)C02 1All this has left many science writers facing a slow-burning existential crisis,unsure of their place in this new ecosystem in which they have lost their monopolyon science news. Some are also unfamiliar with the digital tools they are expectedto now employ and, in particular, unfamiliar with the unwritten etiquette of socialmedia and how best to use it to raise their profile and engage with their readers.Such a shift creates an obvious need for training in using the tools and language ofthis new ecosystem, but also — and most importantly — to help its inhabitants findtheir place in it.Unclear path toemploymentA yet to be published survey of science journalists working for British print anddigital publications shows they are all graduates, and most have science degrees.So while there is no formal requirement for a degree to work in the industry, it is inline with Frith and Meech [2007] assertion that journalism has become “. . . in effecta career for graduates” and Thurman, Cornia and Kunert [2016] declaration thatjournalism is now “fully academised”. But after gaining a first degree, the routeinto professional science writing, either as a staff member or regular freelancer,becomes decidedly hazy — in the UK at least. While some writers have sciencecommunication or journalism postgraduate qualifications, many do not and so pickup the skills of science writing on the job. This contrasts with Bauer et al.’s GlobalScience Journalism Report [2013], which indicated that most science writers aroundthe world had journalism training of some sort, although even here, just 26% saidthey specifically had science journalism training.In this new ecosystem, traditional journalistic skills, such as being able to spot agood story — having a ‘news sense’ in other words — and being able to build andmaintain contacts that provide new exclusive stories are still highly sought afterskills. As is the foundational skill of science writing — the ability to translate the‘raw material’, new discoveries, into clear, engaging and accurate stories. It isreassuring that those who have risen to prominence since this new ecosystem cameinto being, such as Ed Yong and Brian Switek, have built their careers primarily ontheir talent for this foundational skill.MultiplatformskillsBut today’s media ecosystem does require new technical skills. Staff members ofmany publications are expected to be able to produce video and audio content (foroutputs such as vodcasts and podcasts) as well as words. Though it would be easyto overstate the significance of ‘multiplatform journalism’. Bauer et al. [2013] foundthat globally, 35% of science journalists never use podcasts and 38% never producevideo content. Similarly, Thurman, Cornia and Kunert [2016] found that 54% ofBritish journalists work in a single medium, and “about a third” work across two.Anecdotal evidence from my experiences in the science journalism industryindicate that it is generally a working knowledge of video and audio productionthat are required; more advanced editing and production are handled by specialiststaff. This echoes the findings of Brown and Collins [2010] whose study of USnewspaper and TV staff, showed that the expectation of skills is not high.Other technical skills are required too — the ability to use different social mediaplatforms, to work with the content management system of websites, to ensure thatJCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 2what is written online is search engine optimised and, often, to translate contentfrom print onto other digital platforms, such as apps. Bauer et al. [2013] found thatprint stories, web stories and Facebook posts dominate the outputs of today’sscience journalists worldwide. Globally, twitter and blogs are less important,although there are likely to be large geographical differences here.Then there are the ‘soft skills’ required in today’s ecosystem — the ability to talk infront of camera and on podcasts, and the ability to negotiate the unwritten etiquetteof using social media. Related to that, is the ability to build a social media profile,both individually and for the publication they work for, and the relationshipbetween the two.TransitionaltrainingAll of this points to two clear areas of training need — one for new writers, tobridge the gap between degree and the first job as a science writer and another forexisting science writers, to ease the transition from the print-only to today’s printand digital ecosystem.My time in the science writing industry (in the UK) showed that editors are mainlyinterested in two factors when recruiting new science writers — whether as staffmembers or freelance writers. Can they write and can they produce credibleevidence that they can write? It’s this that acts as one of the greatest, if not thegreatest frustrations for new writers: to get regular work you need to have articlesprinted with a reputable publication, but how do you get your first commissions ifthe editors of these publications want to see work that’s already been printed? Inmany cases these days, the answer lies in work placements (often unpaid) that givean opportunity to write and picking up bits of writing work here and there (oftenpoorly paid).Given this hazy route of transition from degree to science writing job, there’s astrong argument for short, sharp science writing training that is aimed at recentgraduates and addresses some of the core skills — how to find stories and how toshape them into clear, engaging and accurate content. The high proportion of staffwho work on a freelance basis (32% of the journalists surveyed in Bauer et al.’sglobal science journalism report were freelancers), indicates that pitching storiesand selecting publications to pitch to would also be important skills to teach.Media companies have little incentive to invest heavily in training of this kindwhen there is a ready supply of keen, bright graduates willing to take up vacancies.And recent graduates, looking to start their careers have neither the time nor themoney to invest in training. So the training needs to involve little time and financialcommitment — a new science writer ‘boot camp’ in today’s training vernacular.With existing staff — especially those who have been in the industry for sometime — the training needs to give them the knowledge of the technical skills theyneed for the new, more complex ecosystem they now inhabit but also the requiredsoft skills, such as social media etiquette and talking in front of camera. Given thefact that generally only a working knowledge is what’s required here, again itseems the best fit would be a short course.JCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 3But there’s also the question of helping existing writers reorient themselves in thisnew ecosystem; helping them and the publications they work for answer those ex-istential questions. Here it gets trickier. Not least because finding a sustainable placein what has become an incredibly crowded ecosystem is not any easy thing to do.Scarcity ofcredibilityFahy and Nisbet [2011] identify new roles that science journalists have successfullyadopted in this new digital ecosystem, such as that of curator — those who gatherscience news and present it in a structured format and the conduit, who explainsthe latest discoveries to non-specialists. There are successes from other fields ofjournalism where businesses have moved from print-only to thriving digitalbusinesses that can be drawn on too. Here one of the main lessons appears to bethat while news is not in short supply, trust is a “scarce resource”[Graham et al., 2015].But still, finding a position in this new and changing ecosystem is complex and, toa large extent, a strategic question for publications rather than just the individualswho work within them. Yet those individuals can collectively make better decisionsif they are better informed.Given how new this print and digital ecosystem is and the specific characteristics ofthe science journalism industry, this is certainly an area where the cliché ‘moreresearch is needed’ applies to help answer the existential questions those in theindustry are facing. But given the soul searching that is currently taking place,researchers who can reduce the uncertainty with credible ideas based on solidresearch would undoubtedly find that those in the industry are willing to listen,whether what they are being told is via ‘training’ or consultancy.My perspective here is admittedly very much UK centric, based on what I’vewitnessed in the industry over the past decade, what I’ve heard from others andwhat I have read. It would be interesting to know whether others — especiallythose outside the UK — recognise the picture I’ve painted and training needshighlighted or whether the changes in their science writing industries elsewhereare presenting other priorities.References Bauer, M. W., Howard, S., Romo Ramos, Y. J., Massarani, L. and Amorim, L. (2013).Global science journalism report: working conditions & practices, professional ethosand future expectations. Our Learning Series. London, U.K.: Science andDevelopment Network.Brown, T. and Collins, S. (2010). ‘What ‘they’ want from ‘us’: Industry Expectationsof Journalism Graduates’. Electronic News 4 (1), pp. 68–82. DOI:10.1177/1931243110367635.Fahy, D. and Nisbet, M. C. (2011). ‘The science journalist online: Shifting roles andemerging practices’. Journalism 12 (7), pp. 778–793. DOI:10.1177/1464884911412697.Frith, S. and Meech, P. (2007). ‘Becoming a journalist: Journalism education andjournalism culture’. Journalism 8 (2), pp. 137–164. DOI:10.1177/1464884907074802.Graham, G., Greenhill, A., Shaw, D. and Vargo, C., eds. (2015). Content is King:News Media Management in the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury.JCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 4Thurman, N., Cornia, A. and Kunert, J. (2016). Journalists in the U.K. ReutersInstitute for the study of Journalism. URL: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Journalists%20in%20the%20UK.pdf (visitedon 10th May 2016).Author Andy Ridgway is a Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at the University ofthe West of England in Bristol. He spent 20 years as a journalist working for BBCFocus magazine, among other publications. He continues to write for popularscience magazines in the U.K. E-mail: andy.ridgway@uwe.ac.uk.Ridgway, A. (2016). ‘How training can fix the existential crisis in scienceHow to citejournalism’. JCOM 15 (04), C02.This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial -NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.ISSN 1824 – 2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. http://jcom.sissa.it/.JCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 5

How training can fix the existential crisis in science journalism

https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/910770/1/JCOM_1504_2016_C02.pdf

How training can fix the existential crisis in science journalism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UWE Bristol Research Repository