Features of polarised scientific messages online: A review

A study from the University of São Paulo reveals a troubling rise in polarised scientific messages online, highlighting a significant knowledge gap in understanding this phenomenon. Researchers found that these communications often present a single viewpoint and use assertive language, underscoring the urgent need for further research to improve science communication and address the divisive effects of polarisation.

The digital environment poses significant challenges for science communication. In recent years, polarisation has surged, especially on social media platforms. While the absence of intermediaries between information sources, interpreters, and news recipients has potential benefits, it can also lead to contentious outcomes.

A team of health sciences researchers from the University of São Paulo (Brazil) conducted a scoping review to explore the characteristics of polarised scientific messages in the digital space. Published in the Journal of Science Communication, their study analysed ten research articles focused on this topic, identifying key features distinguishing polarised messages from non-polarised ones. The review also examined the definitions and synonyms of polarised messages most commonly used in the selected studies, the link between these kinds of studies with the background of their authors, and the contexts in which these messages are created. The ultimate goal was to propose a "codification system for polarised scientific digital messages in the context of science communication."

Key findings

One notable result of the review was identifying a significant knowledge gap in the field. Indeed, despite the rising importance of this issue, the researchers were able to find only ten studies that met their selection criteria.

The definitions of polarised scientific digital messages varied across the reviewed articles. However, all studies agreed in highlighting several key features of this mode of communication, including:

• Presentation of a single point of view,
• Use of assertive statements and strong intensifiers;
• Reliance on expert opinions to support arguments;
• Employing sarcasm.

Polarised messages were often associated with concepts like controversy, opposition, conflict, scepticism, corruption, purity, and uncertainty. In contrast, non-polarised messages were defined by their presentation of multiple perspectives, acknowledgement of uncertainty in complex topics, and emphasis on including diverse opinions.

Insights and gaps

Due to the limited scope of available data, the authors could not establish a strong connection between the characteristics of polarised scientific digital messages and the backgrounds or contexts of their creators or primary audiences. However, one of the analysed studies highlighted an intriguing difference in perceptions of the polarisation of scientists and science journalists. It found that "scientists with one-sided views were seen as less biased and more credible than those with balanced views. Conversely, journalists with balanced views were deemed less biased."

Recommendations for science communication

Overall, this research underscores the urgent need for further investigation into the characteristics of polarised scientific digital messages. Current studies are still "limited in scope and geographically constrained." Despite these limitations, the identified characteristics provide valuable insights for science communicators seeking to address the spread and persistence of polarisation in the digital environment.

While audiences often "crave certainty for comfort and reassurance," it's important to remember that oversimplification of scientific information can exacerbate polarisation, hinder critical thinking, and deepen divides between opposing viewpoints. For science communication to be effective and have a positive impact, communicators should refrain from presenting consensus "as an unchallengeable fact" and instead acknowledge the diversity of perspectives on the same issue.

This inclusive approach fosters a more balanced public discourse and benefits the scientific process. The authors note that "the dominance of a hegemonic discourse may intimidate scientific progress by discouraging the questioning of established norms, in contradiction to the principle of falsifiability."

Read the full article here: Characterisation of polarised scientific digital messages: a scoping review