Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemScience Communication for Public Health: Public Consultations, News Media Representations and Public Experts( 2023-09)This thesis is focused on the intersection of science communication and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic (which was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 and as of writing this thesis in 2023, it is ongoing) has highlighted how crucial effective science communication is during a public health crisis. Natural sciences have been heavily influenced by the school of thought known as positivism, which involves the methodological pursuit of knowledge through empirical observations and the quest for universally applicable scientific laws. Many public health disciplines follow the principles of positivist natural science. However, the concept of positivism is subject to debate, as critics suggest its focus on objective truths disregards the influence of social, cultural, and historical factors on knowledge generation. Furthermore, social scientists view the media, and other information dissemination activities, as socially constructed rather than purely objective. The task of communicating natural science to the public via media and engagement activities such as public consultations involves translating intricate scientific information into narratives that resonate with the public. This translation process involves professionals such as scientific experts, science communicators and journalists who must balance understandability, relevance to the audience, and factual correctness. Key theoretical frameworks used in the science communication literature include the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) framework and ‘public engagement with science and technology’ (PEST) framework. The PUS framework assumes that the public's doubt or scepticism about science is linked to a deficiency in their understanding of science. The PEST framework has a focus on conveying diverse perspectives and critical reflections about science and involving the public in scientific dialogues and active participation. Whilst some science communication scholars have argued that there should be a shift from the PUS to PEST frameworks, there is acknowledgement that the PUS framework is still widely in use. Related to the PUS and PEST frameworks is medialisation theory, which describes the relationship between science and the media. This involves the mutually beneficial relationship between scientists and journalists and the overall orientation of science toward the media. Medialisation can result in increased media coverage of science but can also lead to the distortion of scientific reporting which can be a threat to scientific integrity. My thesis aimed to address the gap in knowledge regarding the stakeholders of science communication in socially constructed public health contexts and the applicability of science communication theoretical frameworks. Therefore, the overarching aim of this thesis was to explore the roles, tensions and experiences of the stakeholders involved in the communication of public health science in socially constructed environments. To achieve this, I conducted three separate case studies of public health-related science communication in socially constructed contexts in Australia. The first case study used qualitative content and thematic analysis to examine the written submissions to an Australian government-led public consultation run by the Therapeutic Goods Administration covering the regulation of autologous stem cell therapy. The findings showed that there was a divergence of opinion among stakeholders, with some advocating for unregulated ASCT (patients and providers) while others pushed for greater regulation (scientist and scientific organisations). This public consultation had the potential to strengthen prevailing power relationships and exacerbate social inequalities. The PUS framework appeared to underpin the approach to this Australian government-led public consultation, with disproportionate influence of scientists and scientific institutions over patients and providers. The second case study used qualitative content and thematic analysis to examine the translation of journal article to press release and the subsequent news media reporting of an Australian study on vitamin supplementation and risk of birth defects. The findings showed that, replicated from the press release to the news media reporting were issues such as sensationalism, misrepresentation, inappropriate clinical recommendations, and subjectivity. Additionally, pressures faced by journalists, scientists, and their institutions created a mutually beneficial relationship that prioritised newsworthiness over scientific integrity, with the potential to harm public health. The PUS framework and medialisation theory can help to explain the distortion of information about this Australian scientific study, including misrepresentation within the institution press release and whether independent views were sought by journalists. The third case study used a thematic analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews with public experts acting as science communicators during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand their motivations, responsibilities, impacts, and experiences. Findings showed that public experts received negative feedback from the public. However, difficult interactions for public experts extended beyond members of the public and involved journalists. Additionally, public experts had positive experiences, such as making a tangible impact on public health, alleviating community anxiety, and democratising research by making it accessible beyond academic audiences. Furthermore, public experts were not talking about their own research but were talking about the work of other scientists and how this related to society in general. From a theoretical perspective, the motivations, responsibilities, impacts and experiences of public experts who spoke in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic were explained by aspects of both the PUS and PEST frameworks. Additionally, medialisation may have equipped scientists to serve as public experts during the COVID-19 crisis, ultimately benefiting society. In conclusion, this thesis explored the roles, tensions and experiences of the stakeholders involved in the communication of public health science in socially constructed environments in Australia via three separate case studies. The findings revealed that the public consultation had the potential to strengthen prevailing power relationships and exacerbate social inequalities. Pressures faced by journalists, scientists, and their institutions created a mutually beneficial relationship that prioritised newsworthiness over scientific integrity. Public experts had negative but also notable positive experiences from engaging with the media including having a translatable impact on public health. Additionally, my three case studies demonstrated the value of the theoretical frameworks in understanding the relationships between science and society, and science and the media.