Search for: All records

Abstract There have been repeated calls in the US for scientists to communicate the importance of biological collections to both a general public audience and to policy makers. Natural history museums that house both collections and research staff while maintaining online media presences, are well positioned to communicate that value. Our study aims to understand how these museums present themselves and their research and collections via YouTube. We created a standardized and repeatable 15-question codebook to categorize content and production choices in museum account YouTube posts. In total, we analyzed 437 videos posted by 28 natural history museums in the US in 2019 and 2023, showing that messages featuring museum science are uncommon. Instead, YouTube users are likely to encounter live event recordings or promotional content related to museum or exhibit information. Research and collections themed content represents an opportunity gap for museums to engage YouTube audiences in science. If natural history museums that maintain both collections and research staff want to answer the repeated calls of communicating the importance of collections in research, then we recommend either (1) incorporating research and collections into their other video types, and/or (2) looking to other YouTube channels, some of which are subsidiary to museum institutional accounts, as a model for research and collections content strategies. 

Communication of science through online media has become a primary means of disseminating and connecting science with a public audience. However, online media can come in many forms and stories of scientific discovery can be told by many individuals. We tested whether the relationship of a spokesperson to the science story being told (i.e., the narrative perspective) influences how people react and respond to online science media. We created five video stimuli that fell into three treatments: a scientist presenting their own research (male or female), a third-party summarizing research (male or female), and an infographic-like video with no on-screen presenter. Each of these videos presented the same fabricated science story about the discovery of a new ant species (Formicidae). We used Qualtrics to administer and obtain survey responses from 515 participants (~100 per video). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the videos and after viewing the stimulus answered questions assessing their perceptions of the video (trustworthiness and enjoyment), the spokesperson (trustworthiness and competence), scientists in general (competence and warmth), and attitudes towards the research topic and funding. Participants were also asked to recall what they had seen and heard. We determined that when participants watched a video in which a scientist presented their own research, participants perceived the spokesperson as having more expertise than a third-party presenter, and as more trustworthy and having more expertise than the no-spokesperson stimuli. Viewing a scientist presenting their own work also humanized the research, with participants more often including a person in their answer to the recall question. Overall, manipulating the narrative perspective of the source of a single online video communication effort is effective at impacting immediate objective outcomes related to spokesperson perceptions, but whether those objectives can positively influence long-term goals requires more investigation.