Cracking the Code: A Science Media — Research Collaboration:
The value of audience research
This article is one of a multipart series exploring the unique media practitioner-academic research collaboration of Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement (CTC) a three year Advancing Informal STEM Learning Innovations (AISL) research project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) between KQED, a public media company serving the San Francisco Bay Area, Texas Tech and Yale universities. KQED has the largest science reporting unit in the West focusing on science news and features including their YouTube series Deep Look.
The author, Scott Burg, is a Senior Research Principal with Rockman et al.
KQED perspective
Participating in the CTC research process strengthened KQED’s appreciation of why audience matters, and provided a greater understanding of the importance of reaching diverse or missing audiences. The opportunity to work closely with researchers over a three-year period enabled production staff from KQED’s Deep Look series and journalists from the science news department to grasp the long view of research. While immediately actionable results from the findings were not always possible, for producers and reporters, the research process itself took on a greater meaning.
Working on CTC reinforced for KQED that audience research takes time. Specifically, that while audience research may not lead to final conclusions, it can serve to build a body of knowledge leading to a greater understanding of the possibilities of how to reach missing audiences, one of those possibilities being that more audience research may need to be done.
Going into the project (CTC) I did understand that audience research takes time, but now I understand that at the end of this audience research you don’t necessarily come to final conclusions. It’s not a black and white thing. It’s not so much how we’re going to solve this particular audience problem that we’re having, but rather we’re building a body of knowledge to have a greater understanding of the variety of possibilities of how to reach these missing audiences. — KQED staff
Science media production: Deep Look
Before CTC, KQED science media production staff had limited exposure to more scientific-oriented research methodology, such as conducting surveys, audience polls and interviews. While some science staff had participated in user/audience testing, collaborating with science communication experts on the development of research instruments was extremely beneficial. A number of KQED staff expressed a greater understanding and appreciation of the field of science communication.
Members of the Deep Look team, who produce a YouTube science series, embraced the researchers mixed method approach. They felt that the introduction of both quantitative and qualitative tools helped to deepen their understanding of female audiences and possible approaches to address the gender-viewing disparity for their series. Deep Look’s staff commented that they have come to a greater understanding of the testing process, in particular the work and precision required to craft targeted research questions and instruments to efficiently capture data. Coming to this understanding has been a gradual process, but has proven to be a valuable learning experience for both KQED and the research teams.
While some Deep Look staff expressed frustration at the length of time and effort involved in conducting research studies, often not resulting in actionable practice due to non-replication of results, they appreciated the knowledge gained from the use of multiple tools to assess audience viewing and content preferences. Now that the project is over, the Deep Look team can reflect and take action on the results.
Even though I think that the research process felt slow (it’s not the pace which we usually work at), I feel hopeful that we can use these tools and put our heads together to figure something out and put them into practice. — KQED science staff
Science media journalists
KQED science reporters also saw the value of the CTC research process, but like their Deep Look colleagues, would have preferred the inclusion of immediately actionable studies. A planned eye-tracking study and other studies using advanced technology for science news purposes at Texas Tech’s College of Media & Communication had to be postponed due to COVID-related face-to-face testing restrictions implemented at the university. Results from this study (e.g., positioning of images, points where readers disengage from a story, etc.) could have had a more immediate impact for the science news team, and KQED news in general.
Partial results from a study on the impact of incorporating “awe” in science writing as a way to engage audiences pointed to some promising directions that required further research. Working on the project’s “awe” for science storytelling study was a key turning point for many on the science news staff.
Up until that point (conducting the awe study) I don’t think any of us understood that you had to have a research instrument to actually conduct the research and that one didn’t exist for the question we were asking. That was huge. It was like, what really? It was a big moment for us. — KQED science news staff
The science news team had more constraints on their availability to work on CTC than Deep Look staff. Science reporters and editors had to address the often unpredictable events associated with day-to-day news reporting, and were accountable to management of KQED’s news department. KQED’s science news staff appreciated that a research project of this scale required time and effort in order to align everyone’s expectations. Better planning between science news staff and researchers, and among the science news team members themselves, could have led to the design of studies that were more relevant and actionable to journalistic practice.
It’s taken me a while to learn that to get anybody moving in the same direction it does take something big like this. I think if my colleague and I had sat down and said we’re going to do a study to identify the writing flaws (e.g., methods for better engaging with the public) that we see, that would be something we would want to work on. — KQED science news staff
Having worked with Asheley Landrum, lead researcher, and her team from Texas Tech University for over two years, both the Deep Look and science news teams trusted the research process, and as the project progressed, became much better versed in science communication research methodology than during the project’s early testing cycles. Both teams were deeply engaged in the instrument development process, down to the level of wording and contextualization of individual survey items, and the nuance, utility and color of single test images and graphics.
Science engagement
The CTC research process also had a particularly profound effect on KQED science’s engagement staff and their function within the organization as it supported the importance of the engagement strategy the team was already implementing with both Deep Look and science news. Science engagement supports Deep Look producers and science news staff to explore and develop methods for deepening audience awareness, interest and engagement in science programming, and reporting through a variety of online tactics, including social media, newsletters and online advertising.
Project findings verified conclusions and insights that the engagement team gathered through their own social media analysis and activities. Verification of these results through collaboration with science communication researchers strengthened the importance of KQED’s engagement function, which will be a key service and operational element of KQED’s future going forward.
It’s nice to see the findings that we came up with analyzing just our own data supported scientifically. It shows the importance of those engagement elements that we’ve been stressing internally. — KQED science staff
During the course of the CTC project the influence of the engagement staff on Deep Look and science news staff grew exponentially as study after study validated the importance of incorporating engagement strategies in production, writing and reporting. CTC provided an opportunity (and resources) for engagement staff to incorporate new tools and methods into their work to develop a deeper understanding of KQED’s diverse audiences. One study that validated the use of “behind the scenes” content to increase engagement in Deep Look was a key moment in shifting KQED’s science producers view about the value of creating additional assets for engagement.
It’s not like the findings were earth shattering for the engagement staff, but I think it was really valuable for the producers to see. If we produce these types of engagement products (like behind the scenes), we get huge value because of the response. — KQED science staff
KQED science staff concurred that for the research process to have a measurable impact on the organization, study results have to be synthesized or communicated in such a way that others can easily see the practical and immediate benefits to their job and/or professional practice.
