Seven principles: a good framework for debate on research communication

In recent times, we have seen trust in the central institutions of our society erode. Facts and falsehoods live side by side, and it is becoming more and more difficult for the population to distinguish between them. We have an important role to play here as ambassadors for objective knowledge and scientific/scholarly method. Universities and researchers are important cornerstones of an enlightened, democratic society. For this reason, it is important that we safeguard our credibility and integrity, and that our research communication is open, accurate and precise.

And researchers at Aarhus University do so. In newspapers. On the front shelf of the bookshops. At local community centres. On social media. Aarhus University’s researchers are present in every forum, communicating their knowledge with equal measures of passion and precision.

Of course, it says in the University Act that the universities must encourage their employees to exchange knowledge with society and participate in public debate. But I have a feeling that we would communicate just as actively even if this legal requirement did not exist: most researchers have a natural desire to communicate their knowledge and to help ensure that public debate is based on knowledge. And so they participate willingly on every conceivable platform.

Last year, in part in response to this high degree of engagement, Universities Denmark appointed a working group that was tasked with formulating a set of overall principles for good research communication. Their work resulted in seven principles.

Guidelines, not rules

Universities Denmark and the senior management team here at AU agree that the seven principles are good guidelines that can support and safeguard the university’s tradition of responsible, objective research communication. It would be highly relevant to discuss the principles in our research and teaching programmes as well as in the communications teams that support researchers in their communication. There are a few places, for example the Faculty of Health, that have already discussed and adopted principles for good research communication. But this new proposal provides an occasion for other units to discuss these issues in a local context, for example the academic councils.

In any case, it is important that we are conscious of the responsibility that rests on us as an institution, and the challenge we are facing with regard to trust in research communication.

Facts: The seven principles formulated by the Universities Denmark working group:

1) Correctness

The content of research communication must be correct and give the target audience an accurate understanding of the relevant factual conditions, both in regard to results and the research behind them.

2) Relevance

Research communication should include all conditions that may be assumed to be relevant to the recipient’s understanding of the results. Relevant information on aspects such as the significance of the results, proportions and general context help the recipient comprehend the research and its significance fully, and should be included to the greatest possible extent.

As far as possible, the research publications underlying the results should be cited, as well as other research where relevant.

3) Uncertainty

Research communication should clarify the methods and assumptions on which research results and assessments are based, as well as any uncertainties associated with them. There are always varying degrees of uncertainty associated with research results, which are linked to factors such as the chosen method, research design, data or theoretical assumptions. The implications of such uncertainty for a research result or anything else that is communicated should be clearly stated.

4) Scientific/scholarly status

Research communication should explain the status of the research in question in the relevant scientific/scholarly circles. Have the results attracted broad support, or do they deviate from the general consensus in the field? Are the results provisional, or have they been published in scientific /scholarly channels – and what is the status of these channels?

5) Sources

Research communication should clearly state the source of the knowledge that is communicated. Researchers often communicate knowledge produced by others in the research community – in other words, research they did not produce themselves. While communicating knowledge produced by others is an important part of research communication, the source of the results should be stated, as is also the case in the research itself.

6) Perspective

Researchers have both a right and a duty to engage in public debate, expressing ethical, political or scientific perspectives. When expressing a perspective, it should be stated clearly whether it falls within the researcher’s own field of expertise, is based on the researcher’s general knowledge of a wider field, or is based on knowledge or a perspective the researcher has, but which is not related to his or her research field.

7) Conflicts of interest

Research communication should describe all conditions that could potentially lead to conflicts of interest relating to the research or the individual researcher. Examples include but are not limited to conditions related to research funding, patent applications, royalties, collaborations with companies, disqualification issues and so on.