How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses
The comprehensibility of scientific experts is fundamentally important but presents a challenge for experts and their audiences. The definition and evaluation of comprehensibility are central to developing approaches for improvement. On the one hand, comprehensibility can be indicated by linguistic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Communication |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1580377/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850040271785426944 |
|---|---|
| author | Monika Taddicken Claudia Thoms |
| author_facet | Monika Taddicken Claudia Thoms |
| author_sort | Monika Taddicken |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The comprehensibility of scientific experts is fundamentally important but presents a challenge for experts and their audiences. The definition and evaluation of comprehensibility are central to developing approaches for improvement. On the one hand, comprehensibility can be indicated by linguistic measures; on the other hand, audience assessments represent comprehensibility perceptions. However, the extent of overlap between these perspectives remains unknown. We conducted two studies to address this gap by analyzing five debates on various scientific topics, each featuring three experts. Our approach involved an integration of computational linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time response measurements. The findings demonstrate that content and linguistic complexity appear complementary in their relationships with audience ratings for comprehensibility. Interestingly, more complex expert statements corresponded to higher overall debate ratings, hinting at the potential influence of human factors. Therefore, recognizing this influence is critical for improving the communication between experts and laypeople. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c1270df002984abbba7bfcf43aa552f1 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2297-900X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Communication |
| spelling | doaj-art-c1270df002984abbba7bfcf43aa552f12025-08-20T02:56:08ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Communication2297-900X2025-05-011010.3389/fcomm.2025.15803771580377How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responsesMonika Taddicken0Claudia Thoms1Institute for Communication Science, Technische Universitaet Braunschweig, Braunschweig, GermanyInstitute of Communication Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, GermanyThe comprehensibility of scientific experts is fundamentally important but presents a challenge for experts and their audiences. The definition and evaluation of comprehensibility are central to developing approaches for improvement. On the one hand, comprehensibility can be indicated by linguistic measures; on the other hand, audience assessments represent comprehensibility perceptions. However, the extent of overlap between these perspectives remains unknown. We conducted two studies to address this gap by analyzing five debates on various scientific topics, each featuring three experts. Our approach involved an integration of computational linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time response measurements. The findings demonstrate that content and linguistic complexity appear complementary in their relationships with audience ratings for comprehensibility. Interestingly, more complex expert statements corresponded to higher overall debate ratings, hinting at the potential influence of human factors. Therefore, recognizing this influence is critical for improving the communication between experts and laypeople.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1580377/fullcomprehensibilitycomputational linguistic analysesaudience assessmentsreal-time response measurementexpert debates |
| spellingShingle | Monika Taddicken Claudia Thoms How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses Frontiers in Communication comprehensibility computational linguistic analyses audience assessments real-time response measurement expert debates |
| title | How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses |
| title_full | How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses |
| title_fullStr | How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses |
| title_full_unstemmed | How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses |
| title_short | How comprehensible are scientific experts? A multi-method comparison of linguistic analyses, surveys, and real-time audience responses |
| title_sort | how comprehensible are scientific experts a multi method comparison of linguistic analyses surveys and real time audience responses |
| topic | comprehensibility computational linguistic analyses audience assessments real-time response measurement expert debates |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1580377/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT monikataddicken howcomprehensiblearescientificexpertsamultimethodcomparisonoflinguisticanalysessurveysandrealtimeaudienceresponses AT claudiathoms howcomprehensiblearescientificexpertsamultimethodcomparisonoflinguisticanalysessurveysandrealtimeaudienceresponses |