Maria Balinska is one of the founders of The Conversation in the United States and served as our editor there for four years. Now, she is the Executive Director of the US-UK Fulbright Commission, based in London, and overseeing the body’s work that takes post-graduates in the US and the UK across the Atlantic to teach and research in each other’s country.
They also host superb events, including an annual lecture which yesterday was held at the British Library and titled Connecting Science with People: The Power of Civic Science. It actually took the form of a discussion, jointly chaired by Fulbright fellows Melanie Brown and Clio Heslop in conversation with Mark Miodownik of UCL and Mariette DiChristina, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University and a renowned science journalist.
The format produced a stimulating discussion, highly relevant to the work we do here at The Conversation, with the panellists discussing their experiences of public engagement generally and specifically looking at the interaction between researchers and the media. One anecdote in particular seemed to capture the imagination of the audience.
Professor Miodownik recalled his experience of conducting an ambitious project that brought together researchers from multiple disciplines and thousands of public participants. The aim of the research was to work with the public to assess how food waste bags marked as compostable or biodegradable performed over time on domestic compost heaps. The researchers concluded that “home composting is not an effective or environmentally beneficial waste processing method for biodegradable or compostable packaging in the UK”.
Clear results
The results were compelling, yet Professor Miodownik recalled the aftermath of the project – the public communication aspect of it – as frustrating. Perhaps unsurprisingly companies that manufacture such bags had pushed back vigorously. Miodownik is a huge proponent of recycling, and in particular of composting food waste, but as the research entered the mill of media coverage, laden with agendas, editorial lines and “balance” the core value of the research was, to some degree, lost in communication.
This really struck a chord with me. We’re sometimes asked by those who study the media if Conversation is “really journalism”. I’ve touched on our unique style and approach before here. The implication being that hearing directly from the researchers perhaps removes a layer of journalistic screening. I always refute that on the basis that the editorial process is extremely rigorous and questioning. But it’s also clear that some journalistic traditions do not always best serve the readers. When faced with compelling research, for example, does the journalistic instinct to provide “another point of view” always enhance understanding and pave a pathway to the truth?
‘Balance’ doesn’t necessarily provide clarity
It is, of course, inevitable that research will be interpreted, regurgitated, contested in the aftermath of publication. And that seems not only important for public understanding but an essential component of how academic freedom facilitates the advancement of research. But in considering the experience of Professor Miodownik’s compostable bag crew I wondered if a further component ought to be considered when building such teams. He rightly championed its inter-disciplinarity, so perhaps the next step is to embed a communicator with the research team throughout the process, working with the researchers to build content and a strategy for publication and beyond.
This is an approach we have used successfully in the UK with our Insights series, supported directly by Research England. The Conversation Insights editors build not only news features to be launched as research goes live, but also create partnerships with other trusted media creating a launch phase for research projects that provides coverage the team can have confidence in, that also sincerely reflects nuance and uncertainty, painting a full picture for the public.
It’s one example of the collaborative approach between media and academia that as Mariette DiChristina explained last night, we’re now seeing more of on both sides of the Atlantic.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
