Abstract

This thesis studied the effects of science journalists opening their research to each other prior to producing an article. This was explored by examining the effects opening research has on the accuracy (the number of errors on verifiable information) and robustness (overall comprehension of different sides of a story) of science journalism stories. Due to critiques from scholars and the scientific domain on the accuracy and robustness of the science journalism found in newspapers, it is important to search for viable solutions to such problems. Theoretically, this problem was approached by using the gains of open-source journalism with the advantages provided by concept-mapping from the field of science education. Methodologically, this project used a mixed methods approach to examine the use of a web application (named DEBATECITED), which was designed to allow science journalists to layout their research through a version of concept-mapping. This examination recruited both student journalists and professional journalists to write ‘test’ journalism on topics (biofuels and genomics) with and without the use of DEBATECITED. This project gave three main results: (1) a qualitative analysis via an open questionnaire revealed that most of the journalists believed that DEBATECITED helped them; (2) a quantitative analysis via a ranking test using a panelists of scientists revealed that DEBATECITED had an effect on the accuracy and robustness of articles; and (3) a final test using a panel of scientists revealed that they preferred the articles produced by journalists when they were using DEBATECITED . Overall, this thesis indicated that DEBATECITED’s usefulness to journalists was statistically significant and created stronger articles. This study concludes that open-source journalism in combination with concept-mapping is a promising online tool to help science journalists counter some critiques of their journalism.