Page 1

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: EVOLUTION, COMPLEXITY AND

VARIETY OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION TRAINING NEEDS

How training can fix the existential crisis in science

journalism

Andy Ridgway

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 tools

they 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.

Abstract

Professionalism, professional development and training in science

communication; Science and media; Science writing

Keywords

There is perhaps no field of science communication that has been affected more by

the rise of the internet than science journalism. Just two decades ago, when many

of today’s writers were starting their careers, anyone wishing to write about science

for a popular audience had three main options: work as a newspaper science

correspondent, write for a science magazine, or write a book. That was it. Today’s

writers have many more options, writing for digital-only outlets like IFL Science

and BuzzFeed and the digital outputs of existing media. This transition online is a

reflection of what has happened in journalism as a whole. Thurman, Cornia and

Kunert [2016] estimate that there are now 30,000 journalists in the UK working

wholly or partially online.

But science writers also face new competition from scientists themselves, as well as

readers, professionals and amateurs who are “simultaneously science content

producers and audiences.” [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011]. This competition has led to

declining circulations and contractions in the number of editorial staff on

publications. At the same time, the remaining staff are having to work in new

ways. They have a new toolkit to use — social media platforms, blogging

platforms, website content management systems, to name a few. The digital

revolution has also changed the way science is communicated from being one-way

traffic from writer to reader, to a “pluralistic, participatory and social” exchange of

stories and opinions [Fahy and Nisbet, 2011].

Comment

Journal of Science Communication 15(04)(2016)C02 1

All 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 monopoly

on science news. Some are also unfamiliar with the digital tools they are expected

to now employ and, in particular, unfamiliar with the unwritten etiquette of social

media 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 of

this new ecosystem, but also — and most importantly — to help its inhabitants find

their place in it.

Unclear path to

employment

A yet to be published survey of science journalists working for British print and

digital 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 in

line with Frith and Meech [2007] assertion that journalism has become “. . . in effect

a career for graduates” and Thurman, Cornia and Kunert [2016] declaration that

journalism is now “fully academised”. But after gaining a first degree, the route

into professional science writing, either as a staff member or regular freelancer,

becomes decidedly hazy — in the UK at least. While some writers have science

communication or journalism postgraduate qualifications, many do not and so pick

up the skills of science writing on the job. This contrasts with Bauer et al.’s Global

Science Journalism Report [2013], which indicated that most science writers around

the world had journalism training of some sort, although even here, just 26% said

they specifically had science journalism training.

In this new ecosystem, traditional journalistic skills, such as being able to spot a

good story — having a ‘news sense’ in other words — and being able to build and

maintain contacts that provide new exclusive stories are still highly sought after

skills. As is the foundational skill of science writing — the ability to translate the

‘raw material’, new discoveries, into clear, engaging and accurate stories. It is

reassuring that those who have risen to prominence since this new ecosystem came

into being, such as Ed Yong and Brian Switek, have built their careers primarily on

their talent for this foundational skill.

Multiplatform

skills

But today’s media ecosystem does require new technical skills. Staff members of

many publications are expected to be able to produce video and audio content (for

outputs such as vodcasts and podcasts) as well as words. Though it would be easy

to overstate the significance of ‘multiplatform journalism’. Bauer et al. [2013] found

that globally, 35% of science journalists never use podcasts and 38% never produce

video content. Similarly, Thurman, Cornia and Kunert [2016] found that 54% of

British journalists work in a single medium, and “about a third” work across two.

Anecdotal evidence from my experiences in the science journalism industry

indicate that it is generally a working knowledge of video and audio production

that are required; more advanced editing and production are handled by specialist

staff. This echoes the findings of Brown and Collins [2010] whose study of US

newspaper and TV staff, showed that the expectation of skills is not high.

Other technical skills are required too — the ability to use different social media

platforms, to work with the content management system of websites, to ensure that

JCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 2

what is written online is search engine optimised and, often, to translate content

from print onto other digital platforms, such as apps. Bauer et al. [2013] found that

print stories, web stories and Facebook posts dominate the outputs of today’s

science 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 in

front of camera and on podcasts, and the ability to negotiate the unwritten etiquette

of 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 relationship

between the two.

Transitional

training

All of this points to two clear areas of training need — one for new writers, to

bridge the gap between degree and the first job as a science writer and another for

existing science writers, to ease the transition from the print-only to today’s print

and digital ecosystem.

My time in the science writing industry (in the UK) showed that editors are mainly

interested in two factors when recruiting new science writers — whether as staff

members or freelance writers. Can they write and can they produce credible

evidence that they can write? It’s this that acts as one of the greatest, if not the

greatest frustrations for new writers: to get regular work you need to have articles

printed with a reputable publication, but how do you get your first commissions if

the editors of these publications want to see work that’s already been printed? In

many cases these days, the answer lies in work placements (often unpaid) that give

an opportunity to write and picking up bits of writing work here and there (often

poorly paid).

Given this hazy route of transition from degree to science writing job, there’s a

strong argument for short, sharp science writing training that is aimed at recent

graduates and addresses some of the core skills — how to find stories and how to

shape them into clear, engaging and accurate content. The high proportion of staff

who work on a freelance basis (32% of the journalists surveyed in Bauer et al.’s

global science journalism report were freelancers), indicates that pitching stories

and selecting publications to pitch to would also be important skills to teach.

Media companies have little incentive to invest heavily in training of this kind

when 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 the

money to invest in training. So the training needs to involve little time and financial

commitment — a new science writer ‘boot camp’ in today’s training vernacular.

With existing staff — especially those who have been in the industry for some

time — the training needs to give them the knowledge of the technical skills they

need for the new, more complex ecosystem they now inhabit but also the required

soft skills, such as social media etiquette and talking in front of camera. Given the

fact that generally only a working knowledge is what’s required here, again it

seems the best fit would be a short course.

JCOM 15(04)(2016)C02 3

But there’s also the question of helping existing writers reorient themselves in this

new ecosystem; helping them and the publications they work for answer those ex-

istential questions. Here it gets trickier. Not least because finding a sustainable place

in what has become an incredibly crowded ecosystem is not any easy thing to do.

Scarcity of

credibility

Fahy and Nisbet [2011] identify new roles that science journalists have successfully

adopted in this new digital ecosystem, such as that of curator — those who gather

science news and present it in a structured format and the conduit, who explains

the latest discoveries to non-specialists. There are successes from other fields of

journalism where businesses have moved from print-only to thriving digital

businesses that can be drawn on too. Here one of the main lessons appears to be

that 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, to

a large extent, a strategic question for publications rather than just the individuals

who work within them. Yet those individuals can collectively make better decisions

if they are better informed.

Given how new this print and digital ecosystem is and the specific characteristics of

the science journalism industry, this is certainly an area where the cliché ‘more

research is needed’ applies to help answer the existential questions those in the

industry are facing. But given the soul searching that is currently taking place,

researchers who can reduce the uncertainty with credible ideas based on solid

research 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’ve

witnessed in the industry over the past decade, what I’ve heard from others and

what I have read. It would be interesting to know whether others — especially

those outside the UK — recognise the picture I’ve painted and training needs

highlighted or whether the changes in their science writing industries elsewhere

are 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 ethos

and future expectations. Our Learning Series. London, U.K.: Science and

Development Network.

Brown, T. and Collins, S. (2010). ‘What ‘they’ want from ‘us’: Industry Expectations

of 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 and

emerging practices’. Journalism 12 (7), pp. 778–793. DOI:

10.1177/1464884911412697.

Frith, S. and Meech, P. (2007). ‘Becoming a journalist: Journalism education and

journalism 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 4

Thurman, N., Cornia, A. and Kunert, J. (2016). Journalists in the U.K. Reuters

Institute for the study of Journalism. URL: http://reutersinstitute.politics

.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Journalists%20in%20the%20UK.pdf (visited

on 10th May 2016).

Author

Andy Ridgway is a Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at the University of

the West of England in Bristol. He spent 20 years as a journalist working for BBC

Focus magazine, among other publications. He continues to write for popular

science magazines in the U.K. E-mail: andy.ridgway@uwe.ac.uk.

Ridgway, A. (2016). ‘How training can fix the existential crisis in science

How to cite

journalism’. 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