IANUS editorial team

For the IANUS project, the societal co-creation labs are an innovative initiative designed to delve into the complex interplay between science and society, specifically focusing on trust, communication, and perception dynamics. The core of this initiative is to explore a series of critical questions that have emerged at the intersection of scientific inquiry and societal […]

IANUS researcher Hendrik Berghäuser, from Fraunhofer ISI, created a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for assessing co-creation methods. They discovered that the concept of co-creation has hardly been problematized in academic literature or thoroughly defined in EU policies. This creates a tendency to regard co-creation as a tick-box exercise of, e.g., including stakeholders, thus neglecting

The issue of trust towards social media algorithms has certainly gained prominence in recent years, in accordance with the dominant presence of social media in our everyday lives. While past studies suggested that users were not highly aware of the algorithmic function (Eslami et al., 2015), participants in more recent studies are keenly conscious of

Co-creation is an increasingly popular concept in research and innovation, and it is often seen as a precondition to create impact. In short, we could define co-creation as the process “by which products, services, and experiences are developed jointly by companies and their stakeholders” (Prahala & Ramaswamy, 2000). While it has spread to the environment

The IANUS partner, Radboud University, conducted a historical case study of trust in climate science and climate change. They reviewed and commented on various survey results on public perceptions of climate change across different regions and times. The following list presents the main surveys analyzed, accompanied by their corresponding results: Eurobarometer 2021 and 2023In the

Even if we can appreciate the role SciComm has to play in building and fostering trust in science, it comes with important limitations. First, if we want to engage in effective SciComm dissemination to repair people’s trust in science, we must remind ourselves that this is contradictory in and of itself. This is because, conceptually,

In a previous article, we discussed the importance of caring about Science Communication and introduced the notion that SciComm can be understood as a communication activity between parties. When we understand SciComm this way, we can start considering communication-specific predictors of trust, such as features related to the communication medium or to the format of

Science Communication is a broad and evolving field that includes diverse encounters of different publics with science or scientific issues. With a focus on the academic field of science communication (SciComm), partners from IANUS WP2, and especially RU, offer an overview of contemporary approaches to SciComm and a critical analysis of the relation between SciComm

IANUS partner EUR conducted a scoping review on academic discourse, policy documents and media regarding the current state of knowledge on trust and confidence in science. EUR researchers further focus on the following three contentious issues of relevance to fostering trust in science:  The current shift in the discourse on research misconduct from penalizing individuals