A critical lesson of the COVID-19 pandemic has been seeing the importance of scientists communicating their findings to the public in an engaging and accessible way. For many psychologists, this may involve talking with the media—something that is rarely covered in graduate school. Consequently, scientists may feel wary when asked to speak with journalists or refuse to do so altogether.
Popular media plays a vital role in the dissemination of science, and engaging with the press can amplify a researcher’s scientific impact (Liang, X., et al., Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterlyopens in new window, Vol. 91, No. 4, 2014). Additionally, the public’s perception of science and scientists can influence their willingness to support funding of science and technologyopens in new window down the road.
Overall, talking with the media benefits both psychologists and the public. “We publish meaningful, compelling, and much-needed science,” said Rheeda Walker, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the University of Houston who has been interviewed about her research on African American adult mental health and suicide by the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post and has appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America.
Yet too often, Walker says, great research ends up getting published in journals but not reaching the public. “Most of us go into this work because we see individuals struggling day to day with issues for which we generate strategies and solutions,” said Walker. “That’s what motivated me to do more, to be mainstream, to get the message to the folks who need it most.”
She and other psychologists with media experience offer these tips for talking with journalists.
Prepare
Interview prep can involve a variety of tactics, including asking the journalist for a list of possible questions to allow you to think through your responses beforehand. If you’re asked to discuss one of your studies, try to boil the research down to a handful of key points in advance. “If you can figure out how to distill them into a few short sentences, that’s particularly useful,” said David Nussbaum, PhD, an adjunct professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago who helps researchers share their findings with the public and is launching Psychgeist Mediaopens in new window, a nonprofit that is focused on this work. He has also written for The New York Times and The Guardian.
Vaile Wright, PhD, APA’s senior director of health care innovation, who has been interviewed around 400 times since 2016 by CNN, The New York Times, and other publications, likes to look up peer-reviewed articles on the topic beforehand and handwrite her notes, which she finds helps her remember the content well. She also Googles some of the big talking points that are likely to come up during the interview, which helps her find clear wording that laypeople can easily digest. It is also common for researchers to be asked to do an interview in response to a recent news event, Walker noted. If that’s the case, make sure to read as much as possible on what happened to prepare to comment.
This level of preparation can greatly alleviate fears of being misquoted. “Writing my answers out means that I can be sure I’m never misunderstood or misquoted. It gives me peace of mind that I know what I’ve said,” said Laurie Santos, PhD, a psychology professor at Yale University who is interviewed frequently by the media about her popular Psychology and the Good Life class, including by Vice and Insider.
Psychologist Jonathan Wai, PhD, who studies educational policy through the lens of psychology at the University of Arkansas, looks up the journalist and the publication to get a better sense of what they are looking for before accepting an interview request.
If you feel uncertain about any media request—if you’re unsure about the topic or the publication seems one-sided—keep in mind that you don’t always need to say yes. “I have declined interviews when it was a topic that I didn’t feel that I was proficient in discussing,” said Walker.
Wai has turned down interviews as well. “My main goal now is to try to point journalists to individuals who have done primary empirical work on the specific issue at hand and to comment less on issues I simply do not know much about based on my research experience,” he said.
Know the audience
The big question to remember when being interviewed is: What is my goal? “Your goal is not to sound like the smartest person in the room. Your goal is to translate what the science says in a way that people will better understand it,” said Wright. “If you go into it with that sense of, ‘I’m trying to educate,’ that helps form the language that will be most helpful to people.” A good analogy to use, Wright noted, is: How would I explain this concept to a family member?
This may be difficult, as science can be very nuanced, and many researchers are accustomed to using technical language. “It is OK to deviate from the jargon,” said Walker. “We have to think big picture: Is the big picture that we want to keep the science hostage from the audience? Or is the big picture that we really want to be able to change the lives of real people?”
This is particularly important for radio or podcasts, as they “are more conversational, and so a bit more of a verbal dance,” said Wai. “For print, having the conversation is really about helping shape the story and thinking of the writer, giving them the background, whereas for radio things are more improvisational.”
One helpful strategy for all media is to come up with clear, concise sound bites about your work that will make for great quotes during the interview. “Rather than stringing together a series of insights and caveats in a single sentence, break your thoughts up into smaller pieces,” said Nussbaum. “Ask yourself what key idea you want [the audience] to take away and try to figure out the clearest, most interesting way of conveying it.”
Wright agrees with this tactic. “Where people get into trouble is overtalking. In their well-intended effort to try to get as much information as possible, sometimes the sound bite gets lost, and then you’re less likely to get that information out there,” she said. “Know when less is more.”
Tell the interviewer when you don’t know the answer to a question. “It’s OK to say, ‘I don’t know,’” said Walker. “That’s what we do in science. We hypothesize; we come up with potential answers based on what we know.”
Get some training
Just like other aspects of your career development, reaching out for help and guidance about talking with the media is always a good idea. “I really can’t say enough how important it is to get some professional training,” said Wright. “If you’re fortunate enough to have some professional development money through your university or your organization, connecting yourself with a company that helps people in learning how to do this type of communication is really critical.”
When Wright first started talking with the media, she worked with a former reporter who performed mock interviews, both on and off camera, and provided feedback about her quotes, facial expressions, demeanor, and more. “While the mock interviews and getting feedback can be really hard, it’s also really helpful,” she said. “It’s a continual learning process.”
There are also many online resources that offer tips on How to work with the media, including one from APA’s Publishing Office (see Resources). This guide helps psychologists prepare for a range of situations, such as interviews for print publications, radio, television, and videoconferences.
Ultimately, the best way to improve is through practice. “So, if you want to do better, seek out more opportunities to talk to the media,” said Santos.
For academic psychologists who wish to be interviewed more often, Walker advises joining your institution’s expert list, which provides journalists with a searchable catalog of faculty members who are knowledgeable in specific topic areas. There is also APA’s Media Referral Service, along with other expert databases specifically for underrepresented scientists, including 500 Women Scientistsopens in new window, 500 Queer Scientistsopens in new window, and Diverse Sourcesopens in new window.
Avert the negative comments
Another thing that researchers tend to worry about after talking with the media is how the audience will respond. Unfortunately, with social media, it’s hard to avoid receiving some negative comments. Don’t let criticism affect your confidence. “Get someone else to skim through comments and emails and pick out the ones you should see,” said Nussbaum. “Put a time limit on how many you’ll respond to if there’s a large number.”
Similarly, if someone on Twitter or another social media platform comments in a way that makes Wright uncomfortable, she doesn’t engage with them directly. But negative comments don’t always mean that you haven’t made a positive impact, she said. In some cases, people have asked her for help in finding a therapist on the heels of what started as a somewhat negative exchange. “The fact that I’m reaching people and that people are then being motivated to seek out help—I find that very rewarding.”
Walker, whose work focuses on the science of suicide and African American adult mental health, has had people write her letters thanking her for recognizing their struggle or asking for help. This can be overwhelming, and it’s critical to recognize your own limitations and understand that while your message may reach tens of thousands of people, you can’t personally help each one, Walker said. “That is the hardest part for me.”
And if you end up being interviewed but not getting quoted in the article, or only getting quoted once, that is also OK, Wai said. “It’s crucial for scientists to realize that science journalists are busy people doing their best,” he said. “No matter whether you get quoted, or get quoted in a way you don’t love, it’s OK. It is important to engage, and doing that and trying to educate the public is a worthwhile goal.”
