Friederike Hendriks

This essay proposes a conceptual framework that reconceptualizes scientific evidence as a process of public construction in contemporary media environments. In social media contexts, scientists, journalists, influencers, NGOs, lay publics and AI agents participate in the circulation and interpretation of evidential claims. The essay’s contribution is to explain how evidential status itself is publicly assembled, circulated, internalized, and fed back into further communication. We distinguish two analytically coupled layers of this process: amalgamated evidence , the publicly visible circulation and recombination of claims across posts, comments and shares, and internalized evidence , the individual representations through which users interpret and evaluate these claims. Their reciprocal “circle of evidence” is driven by three recurring communicative behaviours—consumption, participation and generation—and shaped by platform logics that amplify, recontextualize and remix information. Under these conditions, evidential status emerges from communicative interaction rather than solely from scientific procedures, creating potential divergences between scientific records and what publics perceive as evidence. By conceptualizing evidencing as a socio-technical and communicative process, the framework aims to stimulate debate and outlines a research agenda for examining how public circulation and individual internalization mutually shape the authority of science in digital media environments.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role. ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. This study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity. Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

Scientists face increasing expectations to engage in public communication. Using role identity theory, this qualitative interview study explores how experienced STEM researchers in Germany integrate these expectations into their professional role identities, where conflicts and intersections arise, and which factors influence these processes. Findings reveal that while some scientists integrate communication demands with core professional roles (e.g., research, teaching), others perceive them part of external administrative burdens, leading to resistance. The results imply that the increasing obligations for scientists’ engagement in science communication should be closer aligned with their central identity standards.

Scientists increasingly use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to aid in science communication tasks due to limited time and resources. GenAI can function as a writing assistant, idea generator, or collaborative tool. While it offers promising support, it is crucial to address potential pitfalls, such as misinformation due to its stochastic nature, dependency on prompt specificity, and the risk of reproducing biases and stereotypes. To mitigate these issues, scientists should be trained in competencies that foster ethical and effective interactions with GenAI, ensuring they develop what we call “Good Working Habits” for science communication with GenAI.

Introduction: In times of crisis like COVID-19, science communication is a means to provide orientation to the public. Science communication places high demands on the capabilities of those who conduct it, and, thus, interventions should be developed and evaluated for their effectiveness. Aim: This paper introduces an intervention to support science communication knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and performance. The manualized one-day training program covered communication basics and specific strategies to enhance comprehensibility, involvement, and credibility in communication. Method: In developing the intervention, we used a constructive alignment approach, resulting in closely linked evaluation, instructional methods (including peer and video feedback), and content. 16 STEM master’s students attended the training program. Results: The evaluation revealed an increase in participants’ knowledge, their positive attitude toward science communication, and self-efficacy beliefs. Coding videos from short presentations additionally revealed an increase in involvement strategy usage but not in comprehensibility or credibility strategy use. Discussion: While we confirmed the overall effectiveness of the intervention, we also discuss the challenges that emerged with assessing the performance and evaluating the evidence. Further, we discuss how psychology can support the handling of public crises through education and by fostering researchers’ science communication skills.

Trust in science is both a goal and prerequisite for science communication. While participatory methods are claimed to build this trust, supporting evidence remains limited. In an online experiment ( N = 725), we investigated how different levels of participation in designing an article impact message credibility, trustworthiness, and trust intention toward a scientist. Active participation enhanced perceptions of the scientist’s benevolence and integrity but not their expertise or message credibility. Prior participation intentions moderated most effects. Conversely, awareness of others’ participation increased trust intention. These findings highlight the complexity of trust in science and the need for tailored participatory approaches.