Today, digital visibility plays a key role in determining who gains recognition in science and research. Whether through a website, social media, or presentations: those who communicate strategically expand their reach, build networks, and effectively bring their own research to the public’s attention.
Following on from the first blog post in this series, which showed how researchers can build digital visibility and make use of appropriate communication formats, this second part focuses on dealing with public attention: How can media enquiries be assessed? How can interviews be successful? And how should researchers respond when their academic statements are the subject of controversial debate or personal attacks in digital spaces?
Media enquiries and interviews: Well prepared for the public eye
Those who are visible will be approached by journalists. This offers the opportunity to make research accessible to a wider public – but it requires careful preparation.
After the enquiry: check first, then agree
Before agreeing to an interview, you should research the media outlet and the journalist who made the enquiry. Are topics presented objectively or in a sensationalised manner? It is helpful to consult with colleagues or your institution’s communications department who have already had experience with the media outlet in question. You should also pay attention to which other interviewees have been invited, as this can significantly influence the tone, dynamics and content focus of a feature. If there are doubts about whether the coverage will be fair, it is often advisable to decline.
Furthermore, the general conditions should be clarified at an early stage: Is it a live interview or an edited piece? Is there a preliminary discussion? Who is the target audience? The timing and format of publication should also be clarified in order to plan the dissemination of the interview via your own channels at an early stage.
Before the interview: Prepare your key messages
Before the interview, you should clearly define for yourself which points you wish to convey. In the case of collaborative research projects, it is necessary to coordinate with all co-authors. You should also clarify in advance with the institution and funding organisation whether there are any guidelines regarding press relations. In doing so, you should establish key messages, “no-go” statements and topics involving uncertainties on which you cannot comment.
As the media often require short, quotable statements, you should practise summarising key points in one or two sentences. Critical questions, such as “Isn’t that dangerous?” or “Have you made a mistake?”, should also be considered in advance. Furthermore, care must be taken to communicate figures and effects consistently, as differing phrasing can quickly lead to distorted reporting.
During the interview: remain clear and precise
Scientific content should be conveyed as simply as possible: briefly, with minimal technical jargon, few figures, no irony and using clear examples. Even if you feel you are being too simplistic, the audience will not share that impression. In interviews that are edited, you should phrase key sentences in such a way that they remain accurate even when taken out of context, and include short pauses between them.
If you cannot answer a question with certainty, you should communicate this openly. In particular, you should not allow yourself to be pressured into making statements outside your own area of expertise or expressing personal opinions. Instead of saying “No comment” – which can give the audience the impression of a lack of transparency – you should explain why you cannot comment and steer the conversation back to the core message. Incorrect or misleading statements, as well as false conclusions drawn by the interviewer, should be corrected immediately.
After the interview, researchers should remain available for follow-up questions, offer objective fact-checking and correct any errors in the reporting promptly and specifically. Following publication, it is advisable to actively promote the interview via one’s own channels and to coordinate its positioning and dissemination with one’s institution’s communications department.
Dealing with controversial topics and online attacks
Digital communication channels create a new sense of proximity between science and the public. Research findings can be disseminated quickly, directly and with low barriers to access; at the same time, users can comment on, share or publicly challenge content. As a result, scientific debates are increasingly shifting into unmoderated, emotional and often anonymous digital spaces.
When science communication escalates
Researchers working on political, moral or identity-related topics – such as climate change, migration, medicine, AI or gender – are particularly likely to find themselves at the centre of a so-called “firestorm”. This refers to a sudden wave of emotionalised attention and criticism on social media. Scientific statements are simplified, taken out of context or imbued with moral judgement, and thus spread particularly quickly. Often, opposing groups reinforce each other’s views, whilst traditional media may also pick up on the momentum. A particular problem is that the criticism is often no longer directed solely at the content, but at the person themselves.
The consequences can be significant: ranging from public pressure and damage to one’s reputation to personal attacks, hate messages, threats and doxxing. Whilst such attacks are rare, they are by no means unusual. A “Nature” survey of COVID-19 researchers showed that almost 60 per cent of respondents had experienced attacks on their credibility; 15 per cent even reported receiving death threats.
Protective measures against digital attacks
Effective protection against digital escalations begins well in advance: researchers can take preventative steps to ensure they project a reputable image, avoid interviews with sensationalist media, and work towards balanced reporting. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise that controversial research is unavoidable and necessary for social progress. Firestorms often arise quickly, are emotionally charged and are not infrequently unfair; even a professional communication strategy cannot prevent them in every case.
If there is an increased risk of public hostility – for example, because a controversial study is due to be published soon – protective measures should be put in place at an early stage. These include removing sensitive personal data (e.g. address or information about family members) from the internet, as well as establishing a support network, for example comprising colleagues, the institution’s communications department or external advice services such as HateAid.
In an emergency, it is important first to analyse the situation and not to react impulsively. Comments and messages should be moderated and documented in as structured a manner as possible; if necessary, comment functions can also be temporarily restricted. In the event of serious threats, the institution and the police should be involved at an early stage. Family, friends and colleagues should also be informed to ensure that private data is not disclosed externally.
Public criticism can be stressful – but it need not be paralysing. Those who are prepared can address even controversial topics responsibly and confidently. At the same time, public attention offers an important opportunity to raise the profile of research, help shape societal debates, reach people outside the scientific community, strengthen trust in research and make scientific findings widely accessible.
To the working group
The blog posts published by bidt reflect the views of the authors; they do not reflect the position of the institute as a whole.
