Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (COM0105)

Introduction

Founded in 1948, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is the professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK. With around 11,000 members involved in all aspects of public elations, it is the largest body of its type in Europe. The CIPR advances the public relations profession in the UK by making its members accountable to the public through a code of conduct and setting standards through best practice guidance and the provision of education and training. The CIPR was granted its Royal Charter by the Privy Council in February 2005.

For more information, please visit http://www.cipr.co.uk/

Background

1. In October 2014, the CIPR and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) published a research study examining the roles and tasks of science public relations and communication professionals.

2. Researchers interviewed 90 science communicators, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, and also undertook a detailed contextual review of relevant secondary research.
    
3. The study aimed to develop a broader understanding of the types of practice and the potential for improving support for science PR and communications in the UK. It has been used to inform science communication strategy in Government and to determine the support provided by science communication networks to practitioners.

Executive summary

4. Public understanding of science is heavily influenced by traditional and digital media and this in turn is influenced by science public relations and communication.

5. The distinctions between communication, public relations and journalism are blurring as media types and consumption fragment.

6. Secondary research into science public relations identifies a correlation between public relations activity and media coverage, in terms of content and accuracy.

7. Critical studies are underpinned by an assertion that there is a necessary tension between public interest and public relations; excellence models of public relations challenge this view.
    
8. In the CIPR study, ethics and accuracy were commonplace considerations.

9. According to that study, where effective, accurate communication of science by public relations practitioners is under threat this is typically a result of:

-          organisations’ misappropriating scientific information to serve unsuitable objectives, which in turn is a reflection of the low level of influence of the public relations function within the organisation

-          objectives outstripping resources 

-          changes in the media landscape, including the loss of specialist reporters, fragmentation of media and changes in the volume and speed of published research

-          the elements of the scientific method which discourage scientists from being spokespeople.
 

10. Government could best support the public engagement with science that is driven by professional public relations by:

-          investing in specialist training and development of science public relations within Government departments and agencies, to ensure that science PR in those organisations is done well, partly through ethical considerations, partly by developing a professional practice
 

-          helping communicators within Government and agencies to assume a professional identity through a community of networks and professional alliances

-          taking the long view of public engagement and interest in science, including an acknowledgement that communication campaigns may require longer-term investment.
 

The trends in attitudes to science, and public engagement with science 

11. News media and television documentaries remain dominant forces in the public understanding of science, according to the study’s review of secondary research. However online sources, including news websites and social networks, are growing in popularity and are more regular information sources among young adults. People actively seeking out information on science are most likely to do so online[1].

12. Public relations activity heavily influences media coverage of science[2]. However, in the multiplication of communication channels and the fragmentation of our media consumption, the dividing line between science public relations and journalism is obscured; science communicators adopt journalistic techniques in order to by-pass or complement existing news media. Digital and social media management is now one of the most common operational tasks undertaken by public relations practitioners[3].

13. Research about science public relations has been dominated by considerations of traditional media relations. There is a correlation between the quality of press releases and associated newspaper stories[4]. Exaggeration in news reporting of scientific topics is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases and ‘improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news’[5]. BIS’ Science and the Media Report of 2010 concluded that ‘there is no doubt that too many inaccurate or misleading science stories can be traced back to poor press releases’ but also found that ‘at their best, science press officers share responsibility for much of the high-quality science reporting in the UK ‘[6].

14. The CIPR has been unable to identify any published research which establishes a causal relationship between media relations promotion of particular topic, resulting media coverage and public understanding.

15. Research critical of media relations is commonly accompanied by the assertion that public interest (including the public understanding of science) and science communications (as public relations) are at times mutually exclusive as a result of public relations’ responsibility to the organisation, and that when the public interest and that of the organisation come into conflict, the interests of the organisation triumph.

16. This is at odds with various excellence models of public relations, as encapsulated in modern PR qualifications, which maintain that the objective of PR’s contribution to society at large is the achievement of a balance between the intentions of the institutions represented and the legitimate concerns of their community and constituency[7].

17. In the CIPR’s primary research, considerations of ethics and accuracy were commonplace. The vast majority of respondents were governed by a professional or institutional code of communication conduct.

18. Public relations is commonly viewed negatively in scientific organisations and practitioners preferred the descriptor ‘communicator’, even if their role involved tasks typically defined as PR activity (such as media relations).

19. Although the communication of scientific fact may be a primary objective of many of the organisations involved in the study, scientific information was also used to service a wide range of other activities, including profile raising, fund-raising, student and staff recruitment, branding, etc. This multiplicity of objectives posed a threat to the serious process of science communication, as information risked being used out of context or dumbed-down. Affording professional public relations a strategic (rather than tactical) role within scientific organisations was viewed as a safeguard against this kind of misappropriation of information.

20. Lack of resource was also felt to place increasing pressures on existing staff and posing threats to the quality of science public relations and communication, particularly if an organisation’s inability to prioritise effectively means resources are spread too thinly.

21. The research also indicates that it is crucial for organisations engaged in science communication to acknowledge the difference between activities orientated to benefit the employer and those performed for the public interest - otherwise organisations risk being or appearing to be dishonest about their motives, leading to a corrosion of trust and reputation.

22. Senior respondents identified that science is commonly controversial in its infancy because it deals with new developments and the unfamiliar. In a fragmented media landscape where opposing voices with access to publishing platforms may feel that being scientifically accurate works against their purposes, the professional public relations and communication function can be a safeguard for the understanding of science, providing accurate balanced information.

23. The main challenges facing study respondents from within their organisation were stretched resources and the (un)willingness of scientists to engage in communication. The latter phenomenon is crucial to public engagement with science and was typically viewed as a consequence of the scientific method, where considerations of collaboration and discretion, including intellectual property, and the difficulty in striking the right balance between complexity and engaging communication, can deter the scientists from becoming spokespeople.

24. The most common challenges facing science communicators from outside their organisation related to changes in the media and the publishing landscape. This typically meant:
     

-          a decline in the number of specialist science journalists and corresponding decline in the quality of science reporting

-          difficulties in making technical items newsworthy

-          an inherent risk of sensationalism in the reporting of science

-          increasing pressures on journalists due to the decline in numbers and multiple deadlines across a range of media types – with implications for the reputation of scientific organisations

-          the resource-intensive nature of social media adoption and the need to generate ever-greater volumes of content in order to populate the plethora of available channels

-          the possible threat to public understanding of science posed by social media, where inherent bias in the medium might be more difficult to detect (balanced against the potential to have a more open dialogue and conversation with different audiences)

-          changes in the publication process of scientific journals, with practitioners now struggling with the volume of published research in terms of selecting information to promote and negotiating publishing embargos and deadlines with journals.

25. The study concluded that science communication and public relations are specialisms. There was a strong emphasis on the importance of developing a professional community of science public relations and communication practitioners in order to:

-          improve relationships between scientific organisations and thus boost the impact of public affairs and lobbying activity

-          develop a set of common professional standards and a distinct professional identity

-          respond to training needs

-          recognise the specialised nature of the endeavour.

The extent to which public dialogue and consultation is being effectively used by Government in science and technology areas of policy-making, and the strategies and actions being taken by Government to foster public engagement and trust of science more widely.

26. Public affairs respondents in the CIPR study reported that Government departments have a tendency to build the strongest stakeholder relationships with those scientific organisations they fund – the implication being that they could do more with those that they do not.
     
27. Government was, nevertheless, a crucial ally, particularly in relation to controversial science and cheerleading for the scientific community.

28. It was recommended that Government public relations focuses more on decision makers and opinion formers (as distinct from general publics) when looking to communicate information about controversial topics.

29. Political and Ministerial changes were seen as introducing unwelcome uncertainty in relation to scientific communication campaigns, particularly if the Minister responsible for science is perceived as being an effective champion for science and scientific organisations.

30. The approach of Government departments rewarding responsible media reporting of science through exclusive access to particular stories and the consistent rebuttal of inaccurate reporting were praised by a number of senior respondents as effective tactics.

31. It was felt that the only way to improve the recognition and understanding of science and technology in the media and in the political classes is to have more people with science and technology backgrounds in those areas.

32. In contrast to other trends highlighted by the research, in which the pace of communication inexorably speeds up as a result of advances in digital publishing, raising awareness and appreciation of investment in science is a long game, and the major players (according to respondents) should be Government, business and the media. Accordingly, respondents placed a particular emphasis on education and public engagement as crucial to this endeavour.

Any further steps needed by the media and broadcasters to improve the quality, accessibility and balance of their science coverage; and science coverage in broadcasters' programme-making. 

33. The behaviour of traditional media outlets might be viewed as a moot point in this regard, given shifts in media consumption and information sources. However, television news and documentary is still particularly important in relation to public engagement and print media continues to influence digital media coverage and broader conversations.
     
34. Among the CIPR study respondents, specialist science correspondents (distinct from generalists) were considered to be particularly important in the accurate and responsible reporting of science and their continued reduction a threat to public understanding.
     
35. Where organisations engaged in scientific activities are acting as media organisations in their own right they should need to be clear about the nature and source of their publications.
     
36. Given the relationship between media liaison and media coverage, the professional development of science public relations practitioners and their influence within their organisation would impact on the quality, accessibility and balance of science coverage.

June 2016