Cracking the Code: A Science Media — Research Collaboration:
Collaborating during a pandemic
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.
No one could have seen it coming! The events of 2020 rocked the foundations of how we live and how we work. And yet for Cracking the Code (CTC), an NSF-funded audience research collaboration between KQED, a San Francisco based public media organization, and Texas Tech University, work still had to go on! How could activities continue during this period of unrest and uncertainty?
Issues
The combination of a global COVID-19 pandemic, widespread California wildfires, the George Floyd murder, restrictions of academic research, and internal KQED layoffs and restructuring, impacted the CTC project team in ways unimaginable at the start of 2020. Fortunately for the CTC team, the foundation of trust, collegiality and communication that had been established between KQED and project researchers was instrumental in helping the project teams navigate the extraordinary unanticipated external events that could have permanently derailed the bulk of project activities.
From early February 2020 onward, KQED science staff were fully engaged in studying and reporting on the multiple impacts of COVID-19 and the California wildfires on Bay Area communities. In addition, due to the statewide lockdown restrictions, beginning in March 2020, all KQED staff were told to work from home. Unable to meet face-to-face meant that a number of key multiday in-person meetings with Texas Tech researchers coming to San Francisco had to be canceled. In addition to the attention paid to project activities, these meetings were important for building relationships between the teams. These face-to-face meetings were also one of the few times that KQED’s Deep Look and science news staff could meet together to discuss CTC research activities. For the remainder of the project, all CTC meetings were conducted over Zoom.
As if dealing with pandemic and wildfire issues weren’t difficult enough, during this same period, KQED’s science unit underwent a series of layoffs and restructuring, including the loss of a key managing editor position. This reorganization added yet another layer of stress to staff and to the project as a whole.
Up until the pandemic I felt like we had good momentum, and then we pretty much lost quite a bit. We were also just adjusting to working remotely. Ashley (Dr. Landrum) had to move classes online. We all fell off the treadmill of that momentum pretty hard. Fortunately we were able to gain some of that momentum back. It was a perfect storm of stuff going on. We became very reactive and it was hard to keep to a schedule. We had some staffing issues with the layoffs. Your mental energy is taken up by some of that too. — KQED staff
Due to layoffs and added responsibilities of covering COVID and the wildfires, KQED science staff was stretched pretty thin. Funding for backfill to support KQED staff working on CTC made little difference as all available staff were needed to cover the constantly breaking news.
I think we just had multiple layers of complication. We were facing multiple disasters. Like once we got the things going, then the coronavirus hit, and the layoffs happened. So I think we, and we’re still adjusting. We were just so stretched. Our focus day to day was just covering the news…getting the story out. — KQED science staff
Texas Tech research staff also began working from home during the same period. All academic classes were moved online, creating yet another stressor. In addition, the research team had to scrap all planned CTC-related audience testing (e.g., eye tracking, etc.) at the college’s advanced technology lab due to the university’s suspension of all face-to-face research activities.
Solutions
Even under these extraordinary circumstances, the CTC project team was still able to complete the bulk of planned testing activities. Despite not being able to meet face-to-face (or visit each other’s respective facilities), project teams maintained open and constructive dialogue throughout the project that facilitated knowledge building, mutual learning and collaborative problem-solving. To successfully complete these activities, the duration testing periods were extended, and the focus of some of the studies were reframed.
The diversity of backgrounds and experiences between the practitioners and researchers, combined with the creative tension that existed between the participants, motivated both teams to engage in resourceful problem-solving. Involving staff from both teams with different skill sets helped the group collectively see potential risks and solutions that may have eluded them under “normal” circumstances.
The project teams were able to pivot in a way that allowed project activities to continue relatively unabated through the worst of the pandemic. Collaborative relationships can be crucial for fostering joint work that benefits from engaging tensions. During some of the project’s most stressful periods, we observed numerous instances (e.g., instrument development, report dissemination) that even with persistent methodological and process differences, all parties understood that they were sitting “on the same side of the table” as they offered critiques or suggestions. In some ways, having to collectively confront daily unpredictability may have accelerated and strengthened the collaboration building process.
What also helped both teams navigate through difficult times was the number of practices they held in common. While some research and reporting methods and terminology may have differed, both teams understood and respected the process that was taking place.
I think journalism has a very similar process to science communication research. You start with a question, you investigate what’s known about that particular question, you interview people, you evaluate, you write things up or you produce things using journalistic practices and you wind up with a product, but there are ways in which the research process, maybe a process or journalism. And you start with a question you investigate, what’s known about that particular question, the answers you interview people you evaluate, you, you write things up or you produce things using journalistic practices and you wind up with a product. We were all invested in the research process. — KQED science staff
The unprecedented times may also have contributed to heightening the value and urgency of the science communication research process among the practitioners. KQED science reporters understood that reporting on the pandemic and the wildfires was different than anything they had ever experienced. This meant delivering articles that were more thoughtful, relevant, and actionable for communities under duress. To do this, reporters had to shift the focus and tone of their writing. This required a more acute understanding of their audience, a place where science communication research could be most helpful. Insights gained through CTC research studies conducted during the pandemic enabled the science news staff to think differently about their work and relationships with diverse audiences.
