Cracking the Code: Survey Results on Millennials and Their Science Curiosity
Sponsored
Player sponsored by
window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"about_16961": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "about_16961",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "16961",
"found": true
},
"parent": 0,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-160x90.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 90
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131.jpg",
"width": 2309,
"height": 1299
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-2048x1152.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1152
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-1020x574.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 574
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-1536x864.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 864
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-1920x1080.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1080
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/iStock-1328668131-768x432.jpg",
"width": 768,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 432
}
},
"publishDate": 1644313375,
"modified": 1644313428,
"caption": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Cracking the Code - Engaging Millennials with Science Media",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"fetchFailed": false,
"isLoading": false
},
"about_16756": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "about_16756",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "16756",
"found": true
},
"parent": 16748,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-160x90.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 90
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1440
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-2048x1152.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1152
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-1020x574.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 574
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-1536x864.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 864
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-1920x1080.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1080
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/iStock-1210918328-768x432.jpg",
"width": 768,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 432
}
},
"publishDate": 1640194709,
"modified": 1640194709,
"caption": "Social networking service concept. communication network.",
"description": null,
"title": "Social networking service concept. communication network.",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"fetchFailed": false,
"isLoading": false
},
"about_13677": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "about_13677",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "13677",
"found": true
},
"parent": 13669,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM-1010x576.png",
"width": 1010,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM-160x92.png",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 92
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM.png",
"width": 1010,
"height": 580
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM-800x459.png",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 459
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-29-at-1.58.04-PM-768x441.png",
"width": 768,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 441
}
},
"publishDate": 1556572010,
"modified": 1556572010,
"caption": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Screen Shot 2019-04-29 at 1.58.04 PM",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"fetchFailed": false,
"isLoading": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false
},
"authorsReducer": {
"byline_about_16895": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_about_16895",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_about_16895",
"name": "Sue Ellen McCann \u003cbr> KQED",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_about_16748": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_about_16748",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_about_16748",
"name": "Asheley Landrum \u003cbr> Texas Tech University",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_about_13669": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_about_13669",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_about_13669",
"name": "Sue Ellen McCann, Principal Investigator",
"isLoading": false
}
},
"breakingNewsReducer": {},
"pagesReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"about_16895": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "about_16895",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "16895",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1644338580000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "about",
"term": 583
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1644338580,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Millennial Science Media Habits and Engagement Cracking the Code Project Summary",
"title": "Millennial Science Media Habits and Engagement Cracking the Code Project Summary",
"headTitle": "Cracking the Code | About KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>KQED, a San Francisco based public media organization, is interested in broadening participation and attracting and engaging a younger and more diverse audience, especially millennials, for their science media. The KQED science team is one of the largest reporting teams in the West with a focus on science news and it’s YouTube series, Deep Look. Supported by a three-year NSF grant, the team brought together KQED science media professionals, academic science media researchers from Texas Tech and Yale universities, an evaluator from Rockman et al and in the final year the University of Connecticut to study and research science media habits and behaviors of millennials. We called the project Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement or “CTC” for short.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The study focused on two research questions:\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\n1. How can KQED adapt and expand upon existing research to understand the role of science identity and curiosity in millennial engagement and interest in science media?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. Which presentations – editorial tactics, platform choices, media elements, and outreach strategies – can increase millennials' curiosity and cognitive engagement with science content, with special attention given to underrepresented and under-engaged audiences within the generation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These questions were studied using a variety of surveys, questionnaires and interviews that will be reviewed below with links to the complete studies and resources, a recorded webinar and a presentation deck. All of the research studies can be found on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/crackingthecode\">KQED Cracking the Code website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As the team progressed over the course of the investigation, an iterative workflow emerged as portrayed in this diagram below as well as a supportive and unique practitioner – \u003ca href=\"https://wp.me/p5Xh9r-4ok\">researcher collaboration in audience media research\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-16925\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"659\" height=\"344\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic.jpg 659w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic-160x84.jpg 160w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 659px) 100vw, 659px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Beyond Market Research\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nPrior to the work on CTC, the KQED science unit relied on market research, data collected from our social media metrics for audience insights. While useful, the data only gave us information on our existing audiences and we want to know more about possible future audiences, individuals that had an interest in science but were not engaging with our content. We came to call this our “missing audience.” We also wanted to understand not only what our audiences prefer – which we gathered through audience reach, top stories, time on page, etc., – but why did they behave the way they did? Through exploratory research, we hoped to get a more complete understanding of our existing audiences as well as our science curious “missing audience.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The audience research performed in this project was informed by the use of the Science Curiosity Scale” (SCS). The SCS is a research instrument developed by Dan Kahan (Yale University) and Asheley Landrum (Texas Tech University) with their collaborators to better measure science interest through a combination of behavioral and self-reported measures. Science curiosity is defined as one’s motivation to seek out and engage with science for personal enjoyment. The scale is part of a market research/interests type survey that asks about an array of topics (e.g., business, sports, entertainment) to hide the intent to measure interest in science. The scores on the Science Curiosity Scale strongly predict people’s engagement with science media, such as the likelihood that they read a science book in the past year and how closely they follow news about science. Science curiosity is a stronger predictor than ANY demographic characteristic (race, ethnicity, age, etc.). \u003ca href=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12396\">Go here for more on the Science Curiosity Scale\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>National surveys on science media habits\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nTo get a baseline understanding of the behavior and habits of science media consumers, we conducted \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity\">a national survey in 2018\u003c/a> using the Science Curiosity Scale. The focus of the survey was to collect data on how audiences in general engage with science media and specifically millennials and young adults on their cultural and religious beliefs, political affiliations, their interest in science topics and levels of science curiosity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some of the key findings included:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Millennials are more science curious than other generations\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>That science curiosity can overcome political and cultural beliefs\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>That millennials preferred video and social media for consuming science media engagement\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Gender differences in science disciplines like computer science and technology, among many other things.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>We were also able to identify our missing audiences through the survey: millennials of color and white college educated women with children.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>To wrap up our project, we conducted another large survey in 2021 need link. The survey was designed by the KQED and Texas Tech research team and was fielded by YouGov in August 2021. We asked many of the same questions as the original survey, but we also surveyed more audiences (in addition to the nationally representative sample) and dug in deeper to questions that were generated as a result of the past three years of research.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some top level takeaways from that survey include:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Curious Audience:\u003c/strong> Science curiosity is the strongest predictor of engagement with science — way above any demographic characteristic. However, science curiosity can vary by demographics.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Topics of Interest:\u003c/strong> Adults (40 and younger) are most interested in nature, wildlife, and psychology/behavioral science. Our youngest participants are the ones most interested in climate change. Health and medicine become more important with age.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Platforms Used:\u003c/strong> Search engines and websites are most commonly used to find science content (public media). YouTube is also popular. TikTok is most commonly used by Gen Zers and is the least popular platform for science among millennials.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Missing Audience:\u003c/strong> Black and Hispanic millennial women seem to be the most frequently “missing” audience for science from platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. This is not the case for Gen Zers.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Science Stories:\u003c/strong> Stories that explain something audiences are curious about in nature and the environment are much more popular than any other type of story, including news about \u003cstrong>scientific discoveries and climate change.\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Story Credibility:\u003c/strong> Curious Gen Zers trust their gut intuition about whether stories are credible. Millennials and open Gen Zers prioritize peer review and expertise.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Deep Look — YouTube and Gender Disparity\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nFor those of you not familiar with our video series, Deep Look, it is a digital video series that explores big science concepts by going very, very small, to see nature up close ... sometimes uncomfortably close, but all in good fun. And the series is by nearly any measure a great success. On YouTube, where the show is distributed, we have almost \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/user/KQEDDeepLook\">1.8 million subscribers and have garnered 325 million views\u003c/a> and 2/3 of that audience is aged 18-34, a young, mostly millennial audience that KQED and the PBS system as a whole is eager to serve.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Deep Look has a problem. For almost every one of our 135+ episodes, the percentage of women who watch is considerably lower than the percentage of men, a disparity also seen by many of our creator colleagues on other science shows on YouTube. On average, about 70% of Deep Look’s YouTube audience is male and only 30% is female. It’s true, there are slightly fewer women on YouTube in general, at around 40%, but still this disparity is distressing to our team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So, why aren’t more women watching? One hypothesis was that the YouTube algorithm — that recommendation engine that predicts what videos you might like and serves them to you in real time — is suggesting our videos more often to men than women, for its own business reasons that don’t necessarily line up with our editorial goals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another hypothesis was that the subject matter may be aversive overall to women more than men since Deep Look is a show about insects, arachnids, undersea creatures, amphibians and the like.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we conducted an initial study in collaboration with Dan Kahan (Yale University) to see if we could replicate this gender disparity off the YouTube platform to confirm if the disparity was platform driven or if it was the content that women found uninteresting (or off-putting) and why.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The study, “\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/14560/cracking-the-code-survey-takes-a-deep-look-at-science-video-audience-and-gender-disparity\">Cracking the Code: Survey Takes A 'Deep Look' at Science Video Audience and Gender Disparity\u003c/a>,” produced the following key findings:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>The YouTube algorithm is not likely determining our gender imbalance of 70% male vs. 30% female\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>When women and men of high-science curiosity watched the content, engagement was equal\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>People’s level of “disgust sensitivity” did not predict the likelihood of agreeing to watch a Deep Look video.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Given that getting disgust sensitivity doesn't appear to be a factor, and that both men and women seem to enjoy the video the same if they get to the point of watching it — this led us to question whether there is something happening —- an inhibition of some sort — that influences the respondents decision to watch.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Deep Look - Factors of Inhibition\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nTo follow up on this initial study, we began to consider why women may feel more inhibited, or reticent, to watch a Deep Look video than men? Some prior literature from psychology and communication suggested that women may perceive science as not being “for them.” So, how could we indicate that content is for women using the factors commonly believed to have a significant influence over people’s decision to click on a video in the real world, such as thumbnails, titles and descriptions? Could changes to one or more of these factors mitigate — or exacerbate — this apparent inhibition to choose to watch? The Deep Look and research teams followed up with several more studies to try to answer these questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In our study, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/15980/cracking-the-code-whats-keeping-women-from-watching-deep-look\">Cracking the Code: What’s Keeping Women from Watching Deep Look’s Science Videos? No Easy Answers\u003c/a>, we worked with Dan Kahan to conduct a survey which included an image of a woman in the YouTube thumbnails of our Deep Look episodes. The goal was to show women that the content is for them by showing an image of a woman enjoying the content. We wanted to study if this tactic would encourage more women to click on the link to watch Deep Look videos. The survey also studied possible disgust sensitivity (someone being disgusted by the title, image or content in the videos) to find out if that was a factor in why women decide not to click on Deep Look content. The findings from this study were inconclusive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In our title studies, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16163/cracking-the-code-deep-look-titles\">Do Stories about Health – and Sex – Draw Women to Watch KQED’s Deep Look Science Videos?\u003c/a>, the KQED team worked with the Texas Tech researchers to continue to explore disgust as a possible inhibiting factor to watching Deep Look as well as other factors that could influence watching the video due to their titles. For example, the Deep Look producers had noticed that more women watched episodes with a health and sex/mating theme. This was supported by an analysis of title themes: episodes with a sex/mating theme emphasized in the title had a greater proportion of female viewers on average compared with episodes that didn’t have this theme emphasized. The same seemed to be true for titles that had a health or medicine angle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This led the team to question: Could changing a title to emphasize sex/mating or health/medicine lead to a greater number of female viewers? To examine this, we conducted a few survey experiments for which we manipulated whether participants were asked if they would watch a video after seeing the original title or one with the sex/mating or health/medicine emphasis. The results were somewhat inconclusive: although a greater percentage of women agreed to watch the Deep Look video when it had the health/medicine title than the original title, the results were not statistically significant. Furthermore, we did not find a difference between desire to watch the episodes when shown the sex/mating title versus the original one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We also conducted a series of Facebook experiments using their advertising tool as a complement to the survey experiments for the Deep Look title testing. The advertising platform provided us with the tools we need to conduct more in-depth audience research. Similar to other digital advertising tools such as Google, Twitter, YouTube, and others, Facebook allows users to reach an intended audience based on interest, age, gender and location.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For our \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16726/how-women-engage-with-deep-look-a-facebook-test\">How Women Engage with Deep Look: A Facebook Science Content Experiment \u003c/a> the science engagement team worked with the Texas Tech researchers to design a test to see whether different titles drove more or less traffic to an episode. Our science engagement team works with reporters and video producers to attract audiences to our science content and engage them through the creation of additional content such as behind-the-scenes videos and photos, polls, contests, live events and social media advertising. The test was designed to engage different intended audiences, specifically among audiences that are female and likely science curious. The results in this particular Facebook experiment, across all audiences, showed that a health-related themed title was preferred, and a more significant proportion of women clicked on them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The science engagement team was also curious how our behind-the scenes content could influence more female engagement with Deep Look. For \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/15515/cracking-the-code-deeplook-behind-the-scenes\">Cracking the Code: What’s the Value of Behind-The-Scenes Content for a Science Series like KQED’s Deep Look?\u003c/a>, the KQED team worked with Texas Tech researchers to compare engagement with a Deep Look episode that included behind-the-scenes photos, produced behind-the-scenes full episodes, unedited short outtakes, and images of a host on screen introducing the Deep Look episode. The engagement team felt that the produced behind-the-scenes episodes helped increase engagement, but the cost of producing such content is very high. This research suggested that the much less resource intensive behind-the-scenes photos are as engaging as expensive produced episodes. Furthermore, even less curious audiences reported higher engagement with the videos when behind-the-scenes photos were present.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since these research results came out the Deep Look team has implemented a robust behind-the-scenes social media engagement strategy with consistent posting of behind-the-scenes photos and videos of producers out in the field, including background posts letting fans know when a story has been cleared for production and livestream events that talk about and show how Deep Look is able to capture such amazing footage of tiny animals and plants in their natural environments. The content would be shared on social media and on the Deep Look episodes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, the Deep Look team conducted a study with University of Connecticut researchers (in collaboration with the Texas Tech team) that focused on how women’s science identity may contribute to their engagement. The research, titled \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16658/cracking-the-code-science-identity\">Study Advances Understanding of Women’s Intentions to Watch Deep Look YouTube Videos\u003c/a>, was designed to better understand gender differences in science engagement in order to attract the “missing audience” of women viewers to Deep Look YouTube videos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The focus on gender differences in science engagement is important for helping KQED Deep Look (and other educational media outlets) identify ways to expand viewership, and this focus also is important for helping science communication researchers better understand how gender and identity influence engagement with science content. Key findings of this study was that women tended to prefer videos with visually attractive images, and preference for the “creepier” insect-type videos increased with increasing science identity. These studies provided us with takeaways about both how to increase our female audience and how to facilitate researcher-practitioner collaborations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The collective findings over all of the Deep Look studies include:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Titles that emphasize relevant and useful information (health, medicine) appear to be more attractive to women than titles that do not emphasize such content. This leads us to a future research question: Do women have more instrumental goals for consuming science video than men? Since having conducted this research, Deep Look has more heavily considered emphasizing such titles (when appropriate) to help attract more women viewers.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Though thumbnail selection has always been considered important, these studies have made the Deep Look team focus even more on thumbnails’ aesthetics and attractiveness to draw women in, specifically intense colors, images that elicit curiosity, or are perceived as \"charming.\"\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Deep Look plans to expand our behind-the-scenes content since it engages our missing audience of women, both science curious and not. For example, now many behind-the-scenes photos are collected by producers on site and are posted by the engagement team on KQED social media.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Though conducting large survey experiments may not be practical for audience engagement teams, we have a better understanding of how to experiment with social media testing to reach missing audiences.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Science News\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nBesides our science digital video team, the science unit also included an award-winning journalism team of editors, reporters and information designers. They reported on all types of science news with a focus on climate change, health, environment, wildfires, earthquakes and water. They cover daily news – short pieces and interviews – as well as features and multipart series for radio broadcast and the KQED website.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Headline Study\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nAt the beginning of our NSF grant as a proof of concept of how the news team would work with science communications researchers, we conducted a brief science news headline study in collaboration with Texas Tech researchers. Although the study, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13722/experimenting-with-science-news-headline-format-to-maximize-engagement\">Experimenting with Science News Headline Format to Maximize Engagement\u003c/a>, did find differences in how individuals might evaluate the credibility of a headline and of a story based on the headline format, whether individuals wanted to read a story or engage with a story did not seem to differ based on headline format.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Key findings from this survey were:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Stories with forward referencing headlines (Ex. Here’s What Little Earthquakes Tell Scientists About the Likelihood of the Big One ) had a greater probability of being categorized as “real” news than the traditional or question (Do Little Earthquakes Mean the Big One is Close at Hand?) headline formats.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Although science curiosity predicted anticipated engagement, participants generally (and millennials in particular) saw question-based headlines as less credible.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Moreover, they were less likely to categorize these stories as real news (choosing “fake news” or “satire”) than they were the other headline types.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Takeaway — The intuitive method of sparking curiosity via asking questions to increase engagement could be seen as click bait (internet content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular webpage) and result, instead, in loss of credibility — something that the news media, and science news in particular, cannot afford to lose.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Awe Study\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nThe primary interest of the news team was to find out if a different news writing style would drive deeper engagement with our science news articles. Through existing studies we learned that people can feel experiences like connectedness and vastness, in reading the written word. We wanted to look at how our story framing and construction, and the narrative tools we bring to writing can foster these experiences and enhance engagement with our audiences. We wanted to be able to do this reporting on the largest and most relevant issues facing our audiences – issues like climate change and environmental justice. Our interest was to cultivate new, young audiences by offering them more than useful knowledge – by offering them experiences that connect them to their larger world, in what you might call a “driveway moment,” those times you stop doing whatever you are doing and get caught up in the story you are reading online.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To conduct this study, we needed to create a survey instrument –- an “awe experience scale” that could capture differences in “awe” from reading news stories. Vastness and connectedness are the dimensions of awe most strongly associated with participants’ explicit ratings of awe. If we can periodically work awe into our news writing we hope to engage our existing audience more deeply and possibly attract new audiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Further work on the awe study was permanently put aside by March 2020 as COVID-19 began to grow into a pandemic. As well, due to social distancing, mask requirement and lack of the ability to travel, the team was unable to execute further study, which would have required trips to Texas Tech University and the recruitment of individuals for tests at Texas Tech’s Psychophysiology Lab. The lab houses state-of-the-art technology for studying all facets of audience response to media messages — video, audio, online, commercial, informational and more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RAPID and Disaster Studies \u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nIn addition to CTC, KQED and Texas Tech University also received an NSF RAPID grant to understand the COVID-19 information needs of its community to assist KQED science journalists with their health coverage. The project, Influencing Young Adults’ Science Engagement and Learning with COVID-19 Media, conducted studies to identify COVID-19 and health knowledge gaps, understand COVID-19 misinformation narratives on social media, know how best to communicate health and science information to the public, and conduct an in-depth process evaluation to capture best practices for crisis reporting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Coverage of COVID-19 required an increased focus on what we came to call “disaster” or “crisis” reporting and the opportunity to study the needs, rhythms and flow of this type of situational reporting became a priority. The team designed a real-time COVID-19 news blog with timely updates and news you could use posted on the KQED website and social media. Coverage for both the blog, engagement and daily and feature news required long hours and new processes for the team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>With the support of a NSF RAPID grant, the team pivoted to focus on understanding the workflow of covering a disaster and engaging our audiences in information that is critical for getting through the pandemic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The team conducted a series of research projects to assist the editors and reporters. Researchers conducted studies in understanding the types of misinformation that was appearing on Twitter, knowledge gaps across the general public and younger adults about the virus and treatment, use of visual information to explain critical health information about COVID-19 in news articles and on social media, and a process evaluation to document the new science “disaster and crisis” news reporting reality that was emerging due to the rapid need for information. The science managing editor used to say “Science didn’t break, it oozed.” That was no longer the reality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All of the studies conducted through the RAPID grant can be found on the Cracking the Code website. A summary of the project, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16717/filling-knowledge-gaps-and-crisis-reporting\">RAPID: Filling Knowledge Gaps and Crisis Reporting\u003c/a> gives an overview of the project and the individual studies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Process Evaluation\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nThe focus of the evaluation conducted by Rockman et al was to assess the impact of a practitioner-research collaboration on audience engagement, research processes and applied practices as a result of the research. KQED and Texas Tech University had the rare opportunity to truly model an in-depth collaboration and gain professional knowledge for future application and learning. It is not often that science communication researchers have the opportunity to embed with media professionals and conduct applied research in real world situations. And vice versa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Our evaluator gathered data and observed the teams between October 2018 - August 2021. He conducted interviews with KQED science unit (Deep Look, News), the science engagement staff, administrative staff, Texas Tech University and the University of Connecticut researchers and consultants and project consultants. He recorded in-person/virtual observations of project meetings that took place weekly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both KQED and Texas Tech came away from the project’s final year with a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexity and nuance of conducting audience research. Each recognized the advantages and limitations of applying different research strategies, both quantitative and qualitative. Members of the research team placed more value on the media practitioner’s professional experience and knowledge as a tool to conduct research, while KQED science staff discerned that science communication research was as much a “process” as producing a science series or developing an investigative story feature.\u003cbr />\nThe \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16200/rapid-process-evaluation\">RAPID Process Evaluation Report\u003c/a> provides several takeaways for the future including:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lessons from Team Building\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Respect and appreciation of skills, knowledge and working methods across teams\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Greater appreciation of the importance of audience research\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Applications for applied and basic research for the study of audience engagement and solutions\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Adaptation, consensus building and multitasking\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>A process to validate professional knowledge and abilities\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Career-building and professional development opportunities for project participants\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Wider application of social media tools and research beyond market research\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Methods for engaging tensions to foster collaboration\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Processes that can be replicated by other media organizations and academic institutions\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Collaboration among multiple academic institutions\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The team also experienced difficulties that were problematic to overcome:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Real-time conclusions from research studies\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Little time for collective reflection\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Overlapping work and project demands\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Lack of adequate formative planning\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Insufficient organizational-wide communication\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Report writing and findings dissemination gaps\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Conclusion\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nBoth KQED and Texas Tech University came away from the Cracking the Code (CTC) collaboration with a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexity and nuance of conducting audience research. Each team recognized the advantages and limitations of applying different research strategies, both quantitative and qualitative. Members of the research team placed more value on the media practitioner’s professional experience and knowledge as a tool to conduct research, while KQED science staff discerned that science communication research was as much a “process” as producing a science series or developing an investigative story feature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even through a global pandemic, wildfires, corporate reorganizations, layoffs, and a shift to online academic classes and restrictions in conducting face-to-face research in the academic space, the collaborative framework and trust between the partners strengthened, and research activities continued, almost unabated. The collaboration was flexible (and risk averse) enough to incorporate the participation of additional research consultants, and the inclusion of new and innovative methods of data collection tools and methods to deepen the work. In addition, while working on CTC, the same collaborative team also conducted parallel research activities associated with an \u003ca href=\"https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2028473&HistoricalAwards=false\">NSF-funded RAPID/AISL grant\u003c/a> exploring science communication methods influencing millennials and young adults’ science engagement focused on COVID-19 media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The success of the CTC collaboration offers the potential for further types of these research opportunities. Science media practitioners and science communication researchers need to find ways to address long-standing cognitive and process differences, and overcome thinly informed assumptions to jointly conduct activities that benefit the field and the public at large. CTC has demonstrated the power of creative tension to stimulate innovative thinking and problem solving.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Cracking the Code Project Summary Presentation Deck and \u003ca href=\"https://drive.google.com/file/d/13YESU2DCyUUDhOguux14l1ldJIEvtHZF/view?usp=sharing\">Webinar link\u003c/a>, August 25, 2021\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\n[googleapps domain=\"drive\" dir=\"file/d/1fOI4Yb5pM-I0HluvWWCLI0P0_Q6_DTMy/preview\" query=\"\" \"\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" /]\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "16895 https://ww2.kqed.org/about/?p=16895",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/about/2022/02/08/cracking-the-code-millennial-science-media-habits-and-engagement/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 4433,
"hasGoogleForm": true,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 49
},
"modified": 1644365538,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "KQED, a San Francisco based public media organization, is interested in broadening participation and attracting and engaging a younger and more diverse audience, especially millennials, for their science media. The KQED science team is one of the largest reporting teams in the West with a focus on science news and it’s YouTube series, Deep Look.",
"title": "Millennial Science Media Habits and Engagement Cracking the Code Project Summary | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Millennial Science Media Habits and Engagement Cracking the Code Project Summary",
"datePublished": "2022-02-08T08:43:00-08:00",
"dateModified": "2022-02-08T16:12:18-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "cracking-the-code-millennial-science-media-habits-and-engagement",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Sue Ellen McCann \u003cbr> KQED",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"path": "/about/16895/cracking-the-code-millennial-science-media-habits-and-engagement",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>KQED, a San Francisco based public media organization, is interested in broadening participation and attracting and engaging a younger and more diverse audience, especially millennials, for their science media. The KQED science team is one of the largest reporting teams in the West with a focus on science news and it’s YouTube series, Deep Look. Supported by a three-year NSF grant, the team brought together KQED science media professionals, academic science media researchers from Texas Tech and Yale universities, an evaluator from Rockman et al and in the final year the University of Connecticut to study and research science media habits and behaviors of millennials. We called the project Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement or “CTC” for short.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The study focused on two research questions:\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\n1. How can KQED adapt and expand upon existing research to understand the role of science identity and curiosity in millennial engagement and interest in science media?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. Which presentations – editorial tactics, platform choices, media elements, and outreach strategies – can increase millennials' curiosity and cognitive engagement with science content, with special attention given to underrepresented and under-engaged audiences within the generation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These questions were studied using a variety of surveys, questionnaires and interviews that will be reviewed below with links to the complete studies and resources, a recorded webinar and a presentation deck. All of the research studies can be found on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/crackingthecode\">KQED Cracking the Code website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As the team progressed over the course of the investigation, an iterative workflow emerged as portrayed in this diagram below as well as a supportive and unique practitioner – \u003ca href=\"https://wp.me/p5Xh9r-4ok\">researcher collaboration in audience media research\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-16925\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"659\" height=\"344\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic.jpg 659w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2022/02/CTC_BestPractices-3-StepsForMediaResearchGraphic-160x84.jpg 160w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 659px) 100vw, 659px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Beyond Market Research\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nPrior to the work on CTC, the KQED science unit relied on market research, data collected from our social media metrics for audience insights. While useful, the data only gave us information on our existing audiences and we want to know more about possible future audiences, individuals that had an interest in science but were not engaging with our content. We came to call this our “missing audience.” We also wanted to understand not only what our audiences prefer – which we gathered through audience reach, top stories, time on page, etc., – but why did they behave the way they did? Through exploratory research, we hoped to get a more complete understanding of our existing audiences as well as our science curious “missing audience.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The audience research performed in this project was informed by the use of the Science Curiosity Scale” (SCS). The SCS is a research instrument developed by Dan Kahan (Yale University) and Asheley Landrum (Texas Tech University) with their collaborators to better measure science interest through a combination of behavioral and self-reported measures. Science curiosity is defined as one’s motivation to seek out and engage with science for personal enjoyment. The scale is part of a market research/interests type survey that asks about an array of topics (e.g., business, sports, entertainment) to hide the intent to measure interest in science. The scores on the Science Curiosity Scale strongly predict people’s engagement with science media, such as the likelihood that they read a science book in the past year and how closely they follow news about science. Science curiosity is a stronger predictor than ANY demographic characteristic (race, ethnicity, age, etc.). \u003ca href=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12396\">Go here for more on the Science Curiosity Scale\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>National surveys on science media habits\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nTo get a baseline understanding of the behavior and habits of science media consumers, we conducted \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity\">a national survey in 2018\u003c/a> using the Science Curiosity Scale. The focus of the survey was to collect data on how audiences in general engage with science media and specifically millennials and young adults on their cultural and religious beliefs, political affiliations, their interest in science topics and levels of science curiosity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some of the key findings included:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Millennials are more science curious than other generations\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>That science curiosity can overcome political and cultural beliefs\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>That millennials preferred video and social media for consuming science media engagement\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Gender differences in science disciplines like computer science and technology, among many other things.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>We were also able to identify our missing audiences through the survey: millennials of color and white college educated women with children.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>To wrap up our project, we conducted another large survey in 2021 need link. The survey was designed by the KQED and Texas Tech research team and was fielded by YouGov in August 2021. We asked many of the same questions as the original survey, but we also surveyed more audiences (in addition to the nationally representative sample) and dug in deeper to questions that were generated as a result of the past three years of research.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some top level takeaways from that survey include:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Curious Audience:\u003c/strong> Science curiosity is the strongest predictor of engagement with science — way above any demographic characteristic. However, science curiosity can vary by demographics.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Topics of Interest:\u003c/strong> Adults (40 and younger) are most interested in nature, wildlife, and psychology/behavioral science. Our youngest participants are the ones most interested in climate change. Health and medicine become more important with age.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Platforms Used:\u003c/strong> Search engines and websites are most commonly used to find science content (public media). YouTube is also popular. TikTok is most commonly used by Gen Zers and is the least popular platform for science among millennials.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Missing Audience:\u003c/strong> Black and Hispanic millennial women seem to be the most frequently “missing” audience for science from platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. This is not the case for Gen Zers.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Science Stories:\u003c/strong> Stories that explain something audiences are curious about in nature and the environment are much more popular than any other type of story, including news about \u003cstrong>scientific discoveries and climate change.\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Story Credibility:\u003c/strong> Curious Gen Zers trust their gut intuition about whether stories are credible. Millennials and open Gen Zers prioritize peer review and expertise.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Deep Look — YouTube and Gender Disparity\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nFor those of you not familiar with our video series, Deep Look, it is a digital video series that explores big science concepts by going very, very small, to see nature up close ... sometimes uncomfortably close, but all in good fun. And the series is by nearly any measure a great success. On YouTube, where the show is distributed, we have almost \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/user/KQEDDeepLook\">1.8 million subscribers and have garnered 325 million views\u003c/a> and 2/3 of that audience is aged 18-34, a young, mostly millennial audience that KQED and the PBS system as a whole is eager to serve.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Deep Look has a problem. For almost every one of our 135+ episodes, the percentage of women who watch is considerably lower than the percentage of men, a disparity also seen by many of our creator colleagues on other science shows on YouTube. On average, about 70% of Deep Look’s YouTube audience is male and only 30% is female. It’s true, there are slightly fewer women on YouTube in general, at around 40%, but still this disparity is distressing to our team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So, why aren’t more women watching? One hypothesis was that the YouTube algorithm — that recommendation engine that predicts what videos you might like and serves them to you in real time — is suggesting our videos more often to men than women, for its own business reasons that don’t necessarily line up with our editorial goals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another hypothesis was that the subject matter may be aversive overall to women more than men since Deep Look is a show about insects, arachnids, undersea creatures, amphibians and the like.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we conducted an initial study in collaboration with Dan Kahan (Yale University) to see if we could replicate this gender disparity off the YouTube platform to confirm if the disparity was platform driven or if it was the content that women found uninteresting (or off-putting) and why.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The study, “\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/14560/cracking-the-code-survey-takes-a-deep-look-at-science-video-audience-and-gender-disparity\">Cracking the Code: Survey Takes A 'Deep Look' at Science Video Audience and Gender Disparity\u003c/a>,” produced the following key findings:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>The YouTube algorithm is not likely determining our gender imbalance of 70% male vs. 30% female\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>When women and men of high-science curiosity watched the content, engagement was equal\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>People’s level of “disgust sensitivity” did not predict the likelihood of agreeing to watch a Deep Look video.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Given that getting disgust sensitivity doesn't appear to be a factor, and that both men and women seem to enjoy the video the same if they get to the point of watching it — this led us to question whether there is something happening —- an inhibition of some sort — that influences the respondents decision to watch.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Deep Look - Factors of Inhibition\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nTo follow up on this initial study, we began to consider why women may feel more inhibited, or reticent, to watch a Deep Look video than men? Some prior literature from psychology and communication suggested that women may perceive science as not being “for them.” So, how could we indicate that content is for women using the factors commonly believed to have a significant influence over people’s decision to click on a video in the real world, such as thumbnails, titles and descriptions? Could changes to one or more of these factors mitigate — or exacerbate — this apparent inhibition to choose to watch? The Deep Look and research teams followed up with several more studies to try to answer these questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In our study, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/15980/cracking-the-code-whats-keeping-women-from-watching-deep-look\">Cracking the Code: What’s Keeping Women from Watching Deep Look’s Science Videos? No Easy Answers\u003c/a>, we worked with Dan Kahan to conduct a survey which included an image of a woman in the YouTube thumbnails of our Deep Look episodes. The goal was to show women that the content is for them by showing an image of a woman enjoying the content. We wanted to study if this tactic would encourage more women to click on the link to watch Deep Look videos. The survey also studied possible disgust sensitivity (someone being disgusted by the title, image or content in the videos) to find out if that was a factor in why women decide not to click on Deep Look content. The findings from this study were inconclusive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In our title studies, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16163/cracking-the-code-deep-look-titles\">Do Stories about Health – and Sex – Draw Women to Watch KQED’s Deep Look Science Videos?\u003c/a>, the KQED team worked with the Texas Tech researchers to continue to explore disgust as a possible inhibiting factor to watching Deep Look as well as other factors that could influence watching the video due to their titles. For example, the Deep Look producers had noticed that more women watched episodes with a health and sex/mating theme. This was supported by an analysis of title themes: episodes with a sex/mating theme emphasized in the title had a greater proportion of female viewers on average compared with episodes that didn’t have this theme emphasized. The same seemed to be true for titles that had a health or medicine angle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This led the team to question: Could changing a title to emphasize sex/mating or health/medicine lead to a greater number of female viewers? To examine this, we conducted a few survey experiments for which we manipulated whether participants were asked if they would watch a video after seeing the original title or one with the sex/mating or health/medicine emphasis. The results were somewhat inconclusive: although a greater percentage of women agreed to watch the Deep Look video when it had the health/medicine title than the original title, the results were not statistically significant. Furthermore, we did not find a difference between desire to watch the episodes when shown the sex/mating title versus the original one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We also conducted a series of Facebook experiments using their advertising tool as a complement to the survey experiments for the Deep Look title testing. The advertising platform provided us with the tools we need to conduct more in-depth audience research. Similar to other digital advertising tools such as Google, Twitter, YouTube, and others, Facebook allows users to reach an intended audience based on interest, age, gender and location.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For our \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16726/how-women-engage-with-deep-look-a-facebook-test\">How Women Engage with Deep Look: A Facebook Science Content Experiment \u003c/a> the science engagement team worked with the Texas Tech researchers to design a test to see whether different titles drove more or less traffic to an episode. Our science engagement team works with reporters and video producers to attract audiences to our science content and engage them through the creation of additional content such as behind-the-scenes videos and photos, polls, contests, live events and social media advertising. The test was designed to engage different intended audiences, specifically among audiences that are female and likely science curious. The results in this particular Facebook experiment, across all audiences, showed that a health-related themed title was preferred, and a more significant proportion of women clicked on them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The science engagement team was also curious how our behind-the scenes content could influence more female engagement with Deep Look. For \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/15515/cracking-the-code-deeplook-behind-the-scenes\">Cracking the Code: What’s the Value of Behind-The-Scenes Content for a Science Series like KQED’s Deep Look?\u003c/a>, the KQED team worked with Texas Tech researchers to compare engagement with a Deep Look episode that included behind-the-scenes photos, produced behind-the-scenes full episodes, unedited short outtakes, and images of a host on screen introducing the Deep Look episode. The engagement team felt that the produced behind-the-scenes episodes helped increase engagement, but the cost of producing such content is very high. This research suggested that the much less resource intensive behind-the-scenes photos are as engaging as expensive produced episodes. Furthermore, even less curious audiences reported higher engagement with the videos when behind-the-scenes photos were present.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since these research results came out the Deep Look team has implemented a robust behind-the-scenes social media engagement strategy with consistent posting of behind-the-scenes photos and videos of producers out in the field, including background posts letting fans know when a story has been cleared for production and livestream events that talk about and show how Deep Look is able to capture such amazing footage of tiny animals and plants in their natural environments. The content would be shared on social media and on the Deep Look episodes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, the Deep Look team conducted a study with University of Connecticut researchers (in collaboration with the Texas Tech team) that focused on how women’s science identity may contribute to their engagement. The research, titled \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16658/cracking-the-code-science-identity\">Study Advances Understanding of Women’s Intentions to Watch Deep Look YouTube Videos\u003c/a>, was designed to better understand gender differences in science engagement in order to attract the “missing audience” of women viewers to Deep Look YouTube videos.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The focus on gender differences in science engagement is important for helping KQED Deep Look (and other educational media outlets) identify ways to expand viewership, and this focus also is important for helping science communication researchers better understand how gender and identity influence engagement with science content. Key findings of this study was that women tended to prefer videos with visually attractive images, and preference for the “creepier” insect-type videos increased with increasing science identity. These studies provided us with takeaways about both how to increase our female audience and how to facilitate researcher-practitioner collaborations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The collective findings over all of the Deep Look studies include:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Titles that emphasize relevant and useful information (health, medicine) appear to be more attractive to women than titles that do not emphasize such content. This leads us to a future research question: Do women have more instrumental goals for consuming science video than men? Since having conducted this research, Deep Look has more heavily considered emphasizing such titles (when appropriate) to help attract more women viewers.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Though thumbnail selection has always been considered important, these studies have made the Deep Look team focus even more on thumbnails’ aesthetics and attractiveness to draw women in, specifically intense colors, images that elicit curiosity, or are perceived as \"charming.\"\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Deep Look plans to expand our behind-the-scenes content since it engages our missing audience of women, both science curious and not. For example, now many behind-the-scenes photos are collected by producers on site and are posted by the engagement team on KQED social media.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Though conducting large survey experiments may not be practical for audience engagement teams, we have a better understanding of how to experiment with social media testing to reach missing audiences.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Science News\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nBesides our science digital video team, the science unit also included an award-winning journalism team of editors, reporters and information designers. They reported on all types of science news with a focus on climate change, health, environment, wildfires, earthquakes and water. They cover daily news – short pieces and interviews – as well as features and multipart series for radio broadcast and the KQED website.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Headline Study\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nAt the beginning of our NSF grant as a proof of concept of how the news team would work with science communications researchers, we conducted a brief science news headline study in collaboration with Texas Tech researchers. Although the study, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13722/experimenting-with-science-news-headline-format-to-maximize-engagement\">Experimenting with Science News Headline Format to Maximize Engagement\u003c/a>, did find differences in how individuals might evaluate the credibility of a headline and of a story based on the headline format, whether individuals wanted to read a story or engage with a story did not seem to differ based on headline format.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Key findings from this survey were:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Stories with forward referencing headlines (Ex. Here’s What Little Earthquakes Tell Scientists About the Likelihood of the Big One ) had a greater probability of being categorized as “real” news than the traditional or question (Do Little Earthquakes Mean the Big One is Close at Hand?) headline formats.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Although science curiosity predicted anticipated engagement, participants generally (and millennials in particular) saw question-based headlines as less credible.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Moreover, they were less likely to categorize these stories as real news (choosing “fake news” or “satire”) than they were the other headline types.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Takeaway — The intuitive method of sparking curiosity via asking questions to increase engagement could be seen as click bait (internet content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular webpage) and result, instead, in loss of credibility — something that the news media, and science news in particular, cannot afford to lose.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Awe Study\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nThe primary interest of the news team was to find out if a different news writing style would drive deeper engagement with our science news articles. Through existing studies we learned that people can feel experiences like connectedness and vastness, in reading the written word. We wanted to look at how our story framing and construction, and the narrative tools we bring to writing can foster these experiences and enhance engagement with our audiences. We wanted to be able to do this reporting on the largest and most relevant issues facing our audiences – issues like climate change and environmental justice. Our interest was to cultivate new, young audiences by offering them more than useful knowledge – by offering them experiences that connect them to their larger world, in what you might call a “driveway moment,” those times you stop doing whatever you are doing and get caught up in the story you are reading online.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To conduct this study, we needed to create a survey instrument –- an “awe experience scale” that could capture differences in “awe” from reading news stories. Vastness and connectedness are the dimensions of awe most strongly associated with participants’ explicit ratings of awe. If we can periodically work awe into our news writing we hope to engage our existing audience more deeply and possibly attract new audiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Further work on the awe study was permanently put aside by March 2020 as COVID-19 began to grow into a pandemic. As well, due to social distancing, mask requirement and lack of the ability to travel, the team was unable to execute further study, which would have required trips to Texas Tech University and the recruitment of individuals for tests at Texas Tech’s Psychophysiology Lab. The lab houses state-of-the-art technology for studying all facets of audience response to media messages — video, audio, online, commercial, informational and more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RAPID and Disaster Studies \u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nIn addition to CTC, KQED and Texas Tech University also received an NSF RAPID grant to understand the COVID-19 information needs of its community to assist KQED science journalists with their health coverage. The project, Influencing Young Adults’ Science Engagement and Learning with COVID-19 Media, conducted studies to identify COVID-19 and health knowledge gaps, understand COVID-19 misinformation narratives on social media, know how best to communicate health and science information to the public, and conduct an in-depth process evaluation to capture best practices for crisis reporting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Coverage of COVID-19 required an increased focus on what we came to call “disaster” or “crisis” reporting and the opportunity to study the needs, rhythms and flow of this type of situational reporting became a priority. The team designed a real-time COVID-19 news blog with timely updates and news you could use posted on the KQED website and social media. Coverage for both the blog, engagement and daily and feature news required long hours and new processes for the team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>With the support of a NSF RAPID grant, the team pivoted to focus on understanding the workflow of covering a disaster and engaging our audiences in information that is critical for getting through the pandemic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The team conducted a series of research projects to assist the editors and reporters. Researchers conducted studies in understanding the types of misinformation that was appearing on Twitter, knowledge gaps across the general public and younger adults about the virus and treatment, use of visual information to explain critical health information about COVID-19 in news articles and on social media, and a process evaluation to document the new science “disaster and crisis” news reporting reality that was emerging due to the rapid need for information. The science managing editor used to say “Science didn’t break, it oozed.” That was no longer the reality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All of the studies conducted through the RAPID grant can be found on the Cracking the Code website. A summary of the project, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16717/filling-knowledge-gaps-and-crisis-reporting\">RAPID: Filling Knowledge Gaps and Crisis Reporting\u003c/a> gives an overview of the project and the individual studies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Process Evaluation\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nThe focus of the evaluation conducted by Rockman et al was to assess the impact of a practitioner-research collaboration on audience engagement, research processes and applied practices as a result of the research. KQED and Texas Tech University had the rare opportunity to truly model an in-depth collaboration and gain professional knowledge for future application and learning. It is not often that science communication researchers have the opportunity to embed with media professionals and conduct applied research in real world situations. And vice versa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Our evaluator gathered data and observed the teams between October 2018 - August 2021. He conducted interviews with KQED science unit (Deep Look, News), the science engagement staff, administrative staff, Texas Tech University and the University of Connecticut researchers and consultants and project consultants. He recorded in-person/virtual observations of project meetings that took place weekly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both KQED and Texas Tech came away from the project’s final year with a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexity and nuance of conducting audience research. Each recognized the advantages and limitations of applying different research strategies, both quantitative and qualitative. Members of the research team placed more value on the media practitioner’s professional experience and knowledge as a tool to conduct research, while KQED science staff discerned that science communication research was as much a “process” as producing a science series or developing an investigative story feature.\u003cbr />\nThe \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/16200/rapid-process-evaluation\">RAPID Process Evaluation Report\u003c/a> provides several takeaways for the future including:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lessons from Team Building\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Respect and appreciation of skills, knowledge and working methods across teams\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Greater appreciation of the importance of audience research\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Applications for applied and basic research for the study of audience engagement and solutions\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Adaptation, consensus building and multitasking\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>A process to validate professional knowledge and abilities\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Career-building and professional development opportunities for project participants\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Wider application of social media tools and research beyond market research\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Methods for engaging tensions to foster collaboration\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Processes that can be replicated by other media organizations and academic institutions\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Collaboration among multiple academic institutions\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The team also experienced difficulties that were problematic to overcome:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Real-time conclusions from research studies\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Little time for collective reflection\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Overlapping work and project demands\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Lack of adequate formative planning\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Insufficient organizational-wide communication\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Report writing and findings dissemination gaps\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Conclusion\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nBoth KQED and Texas Tech University came away from the Cracking the Code (CTC) collaboration with a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexity and nuance of conducting audience research. Each team recognized the advantages and limitations of applying different research strategies, both quantitative and qualitative. Members of the research team placed more value on the media practitioner’s professional experience and knowledge as a tool to conduct research, while KQED science staff discerned that science communication research was as much a “process” as producing a science series or developing an investigative story feature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even through a global pandemic, wildfires, corporate reorganizations, layoffs, and a shift to online academic classes and restrictions in conducting face-to-face research in the academic space, the collaborative framework and trust between the partners strengthened, and research activities continued, almost unabated. The collaboration was flexible (and risk averse) enough to incorporate the participation of additional research consultants, and the inclusion of new and innovative methods of data collection tools and methods to deepen the work. In addition, while working on CTC, the same collaborative team also conducted parallel research activities associated with an \u003ca href=\"https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2028473&HistoricalAwards=false\">NSF-funded RAPID/AISL grant\u003c/a> exploring science communication methods influencing millennials and young adults’ science engagement focused on COVID-19 media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The success of the CTC collaboration offers the potential for further types of these research opportunities. Science media practitioners and science communication researchers need to find ways to address long-standing cognitive and process differences, and overcome thinly informed assumptions to jointly conduct activities that benefit the field and the public at large. CTC has demonstrated the power of creative tension to stimulate innovative thinking and problem solving.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Cracking the Code Project Summary Presentation Deck and \u003ca href=\"https://drive.google.com/file/d/13YESU2DCyUUDhOguux14l1ldJIEvtHZF/view?usp=sharing\">Webinar link\u003c/a>, August 25, 2021\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\n\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003ciframe\n src='https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fOI4Yb5pM-I0HluvWWCLI0P0_Q6_DTMy/preview?embedded=true'\n title='https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fOI4Yb5pM-I0HluvWWCLI0P0_Q6_DTMy/preview'\n width='640'\n height='480'\n frameborder='no'>\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/about/16895/cracking-the-code-millennial-science-media-habits-and-engagement",
"authors": [
"byline_about_16895"
],
"programs": [
"about_583"
],
"tags": [
"about_580",
"about_715"
],
"featImg": "about_16961",
"label": "about_583"
},
"about_16748": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "about_16748",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "16748",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1640194747000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "about",
"term": 583
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1640194747,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Influencing Millennial Science Engagement: A New Survey in 2021",
"title": "Influencing Millennial Science Engagement: A New Survey in 2021",
"headTitle": "Cracking the Code | About KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We started our three year National Science Foundation \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> audience research in 2018 with a \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">national survey of millennials’ media consumption habits\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. This survey was conducted by Jacobs Media Strategies and found, among other things, that millennials were the most science curious generation. This survey provided the groundwork for each of the studies that we have conducted over the past three years as part of our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> study. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">To wrap up our project, we conducted another large survey. The survey was designed by the KQED and Texas Tech University research team and was fielded by YouGov in August 2021. We asked many of the same questions as the original survey, but we also surveyed more audiences (in addition to the nationally representative sample) and dug in deeper to questions that were generated as a result of the past three years of research. Because there is such a large amount of data to examine, we will be uploading several decks focused on narrower themes (e.g., YouTube, Latinx audiences) over the next several months. The first deck linked below is our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What Does the Future Look Like in Science Media?\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> presentation and we also include the link to our related Nov. 18, 2021, webinar.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Here are the key takeaways:\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Curious Audience\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Science curiosity is the strongest predictor of engagement with science \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">- \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">way above any demographic characteristic. However, science curiosity can vary by demographics.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Topics of interest\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">: \u003c/span> Adults (40 and younger) are most interested in nature, wildlife, and psychology/behavioral science. Our youngest participants are the ones most interested in climate change. Health and Medicine become more important with age.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Platforms Used\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Search engines and websites are most commonly used to find science content (public media). YouTube is also popular. TikTok is most commonly used by Gen Zers and is the least popular platform for science among millennials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Missing Audience\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Black and Hispanic millennial women seem to be the most frequently “missing” audience for science from platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. This is not the case for Gen Zers.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science Stories\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Stories that explain something audiences are curious about in nature and the environment are much more popular than any other type of story, including news about scientific discoveries and climate change.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Story Credibility\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Curious Gen Zers trust their gut intuition about whether stories are credible. Millennials and open Gen Zers prioritize peer review and expertise.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Samples\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">As stated above, we collected data from four samples: a national sample of 2,000 participants (26% were millennials), a California-only sample of 500 participants (25% were millennials), a Bay Area sample of 500 participants (18% were millennials) and a Bay Area Latinx sample of 500 participants (35% were millennials). This allows us to both make inferences about what is true about younger (millennial and Gen Z) audiences in the U.S., generally, and to look at target audiences that are of specific interest to KQED and our other STEM partners in California — and more specifically, the Bay Area.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Generations\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16749 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-800x456.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"456\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-800x456.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-768x438.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1.png 960w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It is easy to forget that millennials are a fully adult audience. At the outset of our project, the youngest millennials were 22 years old. Now, near the end of 2021, millennials range from ages 25 to 40, and about 33% of millennials in our national sample say that they have children at home. In our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What Does the Future Look Like in Science Media?\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> presentation, we also focused on Generation Z. There are not currently clear definitions of the start of this generation, but the oldest members of Gen Z were born in 1997 and are about 24 years old. Our survey only sampled adults who are legally able to consent to participate. Thus, our Generation Z sample ranges from 18 to 24 and does not represent the entire generation. We also include some analyses with Gen X (currently ages 41 to 56) and Baby Boomers (currently ages 57 to 75).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Science Curiosity\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Of utmost importance to this survey and to the other studies conducted as part of the Cracking the Code project was the identification of the ideal and “missing audiences.” A “missing audience” consists of individuals who are science curious, and thus ought to be engaging with science content. But for some unknown reason they are engaging relatively less than other “science curious” groups or not engaging at all. Someone who is science curious is an individual that is motivated to seek out science for enjoyment and not purely for information. Missing audiences may be engaging less with certain types of content and/or on certain types of platforms. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science curiosity is the key characteristic for attracting the ideal audience for science media and programming. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In our studies, we used the \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/pops.12396\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science Curiosity Scale\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">, developed by Dan Kahan and myself (with the help of our collaborators Katie Carpenter, Laura Helft and Kathleen Hall Jamieson). This scale, which is designed to appear to participants like a marketing/interests type survey, hides our behavioral and self-reported measures of science interest in an array of items asking about other interests, like business, sports, and entertainment. The purpose of this is to lower the risk of participants answering the questions based on what they think the researchers want to hear. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Scores on our science curiosity scale strongly predict people’s engagement with science media. We have demonstrated this over and over in each of the studies conducted as part of the Cracking the Code project. Furthermore, in this current survey, science curiosity strongly predicts the frequency with which each of the samples (i.e., the national sample, the California sample, the Bay Area sample, and the Bay Area Latinx sample) report accessing science content.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We call this our key characteristic of the target audience because science curiosity is a stronger predictor than any other demographic characteristic. Science curiosity predicts 33% of the variance in participants' responses to the “frequency of accessing science content” question. Compare that with race/ethnicity (which only explains 1.5% of the variance), gender (which only explains 0.48%), or even generation (which accounts only for 0.28% of the variance).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It is worth noting, however, that science curiosity scores can vary based on demographic characteristics. Across many of our studies, we have found small, but statistically significant differences in average science curiosity scores based on gender and generation.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Curious Audiences\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science curiosity scores among this study’s participants range from approximately -2 to 2. We can divide participants' science curiosity scores into quartiles to create four audience segments. The bottom 25% of participants based on their science curiosity scores (scores up to -0.56) are labeled as “uninterested” and seen as not a useful audience to target. Participants who score between the 25th and 50th percentile (scores ranging from -0.56 to 0.03) are labeled “indifferent” and are also not likely to want to engage with science content. Participants who score between the 50th and 75th percentiles (scores ranging from 0.04 to 0.62) are labeled “open” and could be a potential audience for science content. Finally, the top 25% of participants based on their science curiosity scores (scores 0.62 and higher) are seen as the target audience for science content.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-16750\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-800x454.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"454\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-800x454.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-768x435.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2.png 947w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Topics of Interest\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Having defined our target audience – science curious millennials and Gen Zers, one of our first questions was what science topics are they most interested in? We included 15 different science-related topics (e.g., plants and animals, climate change, health and medicine, physics, etc.). Interestingly, “Plants & Animals” was the third ranked topic for each of the generations: Gen Zers, Millennials, Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. Gen Z was the only generation to have climate change in their top three (ranked 2nd), and Psychology/Behavioral Science appeared in the top three for both Gen Zers (1st) and Millennials (2nd). “Health & Medicine” was a top three interest for Gen Xers (2nd) and Baby Boomers (1st), possibly suggesting that this topic becomes more important as participants age.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16751 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-800x449.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"449\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-800x449.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-160x90.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-768x431.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3.png 951w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003cbr />\n\u003cb>Platforms Used\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We also wanted to know what platforms are used by younger adult audiences to access science content, specifically that from “public media.” For this item, we asked how frequently participants access science content from public media that appears live on the radio, streamed live online, on podcasts, on-demand via smart speaker, on specific websites, search engines, stories linked on social media, via YouTube videos, on TikTok videos, Instagram and Facebook, newsletters, or public media stories sent by friends. Over half of the curious millennials in the sample reported regularly going directly to websites, looking for content via search engines, or finding content on YouTube. Around 60% or greater of curious Gen Zers regularly seek such content from social media and/or YouTube, and approximately 50% will regularly use a search engine. Furthermore, while regular TikTok use is fairly low among curious millennials (15%), it is much higher among curious Gen Zers (over 30%).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Missing Audiences for the Platforms\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In our research, we have defined “missing audiences” as those science curious individuals who ought to be engaging with science content, but for some unknown reason, are not (or are doing so relatively less than other science curious groups). We used this survey data to determine who some of the missing audiences for science content on particular platforms may be. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In the presentation I note three important points to consider. First, participants' responses are self-reported. We asked them how frequently they engaged with public science media content on the platforms. Participants may inflate or downplay the frequency with which they engage with the various platforms or even ignore the “science content” and/or “public media” aspects of the question and just report how frequently they think they engage with the platforms generally. Second, I point out that what is the desired level of frequency of use may vary across platforms. For example, we may expect that “daily” is an appropriate frequency of engagement for social media but not for newsletters (which may tend to be delivered weekly or monthly). Third, we looked at specific audiences that were requested by KQED team members. These were not audiences that were found to be missing after digging through the data, but audiences that we set out to see if they were less engaged than their counterparts.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Keeping this in mind, we examined whether each of the following four audiences are “missing” audiences on a subset of the platforms. Note that white males were not examined as a potential missing audience as prior data and available audience metrics suggest they are the group most engaged.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Women of Color:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Millennials and Gen Zers who are Black and/or Hispanic/Latina/x and identify as women;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Men of Color:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Millennials and Gen Zers who identify as men who are Black and/or Hispanic/Latino/x;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>White, College-educated Moms\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">: White millennial women with at least some college and who have children at home;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Women\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">: Millennials and Gen Zers who identify as women, regardless of their other demographic characteristics.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Below are the key findings about the four “missing” audiences our research focused on: \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Millennial women of color (Black and Hispanic/Latina/x millennial women) seem to be the most frequently “missing audience” for science content on platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Gen Z women of color are NOT missing audiences on these platforms. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Gen Zers and millennial women are generally a missing audience for podcasts. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most younger adults are missing audiences for live radio. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most curious younger adults report using newsletters at least monthly, therefore, newsletters would be a good tactic to try out when targeting younger audiences.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Types of Science Stories and Credibility\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We also looked at what types of science stories younger adults prefer and how they determine whether those stories contain credible content. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most curious young adults said that they prefer stories that explain something that they are curious about in nature and/or the environment, and very few curious young adults said that they preferred stories about climate change (even though Gen Zers had climate change as one of their top three topics of interest). Climate change stories were more popular among the young adult samples from the Bay Area than the national sample, but even these participants expressed a greater preference for the explanatory stories. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We followed up with the Bay Area sample to ask how they prefer to read stories about climate change and the vast majority (73%) said that they prefer to read the story online as opposed to listening to a story (radio or on-demand audio, 17%), watching a TikTok video (6%), or reading a Twitter thread (3%). However, when we look by age groups, we see that although more than half of Gen Zers prefer to read a story online, 33% would prefer to see a TikTok video.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Finally, when we asked millennials and Gen Zers how important various factors are when deciding whether a story is credible, we were happy to see that expertise and peer-reviewed content appear in the top 5 for both curious millennials and curious Gen Zers. However, “gut intuition” was the second most important factor to curious Gen Zers. This mirrors a finding from our first survey, which suggested that millennials and younger adults (at that time) trusted their gut intuition about whether a story was credible. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Conclusion\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We can’t directly compare this survey to the one conducted in 2018 for a variety of reasons, some methodological (e.g., different sampling companies with different approximations of nationally representative) and some societal (e.g., potential changes due to important events like COVID-19 pandemic). However, we can look for commonalities between the two and we can consider this survey as a snapshot of science media consumption behavior in 2021. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Again, here are the key takeaways:\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16753 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-800x456.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"456\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-800x456.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-768x438.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4.png 957w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16752 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-800x453.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"453\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-800x453.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-768x435.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5.png 948w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We will continue to provide results from this survey over the next few months, so stay tuned.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[googleapps domain=\"drive\" dir=\"file/d/13_zsw_gXicB6lSTvunvqlutUtzMFDR_f/preview\" query=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" /]\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "16748 https://ww2.kqed.org/about/?p=16748&preview=true&preview_id=16748",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/about/2021/12/22/science-engagement-a-new-survey-in-2021/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2332,
"hasGoogleForm": true,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 44
},
"modified": 1644356934,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "We started our three year National Science Foundation Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement audience research in 2018 with a national survey of millennials’ media consumption habits.",
"title": "Influencing Millennial Science Engagement: A New Survey in 2021 | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Influencing Millennial Science Engagement: A New Survey in 2021",
"datePublished": "2021-12-22T09:39:07-08:00",
"dateModified": "2022-02-08T13:48:54-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "science-engagement-a-new-survey-in-2021",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Asheley Landrum \u003cbr> Texas Tech University",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"subhead": "Influencing Millennial Science Engagement: A New Survey in 2021",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"WpOldSlug": "whats-keeping-women-from-watching-deep-look",
"path": "/about/16748/science-engagement-a-new-survey-in-2021",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We started our three year National Science Foundation \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> audience research in 2018 with a \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">national survey of millennials’ media consumption habits\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. This survey was conducted by Jacobs Media Strategies and found, among other things, that millennials were the most science curious generation. This survey provided the groundwork for each of the studies that we have conducted over the past three years as part of our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> study. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">To wrap up our project, we conducted another large survey. The survey was designed by the KQED and Texas Tech University research team and was fielded by YouGov in August 2021. We asked many of the same questions as the original survey, but we also surveyed more audiences (in addition to the nationally representative sample) and dug in deeper to questions that were generated as a result of the past three years of research. Because there is such a large amount of data to examine, we will be uploading several decks focused on narrower themes (e.g., YouTube, Latinx audiences) over the next several months. The first deck linked below is our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What Does the Future Look Like in Science Media?\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> presentation and we also include the link to our related Nov. 18, 2021, webinar.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Here are the key takeaways:\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Curious Audience\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Science curiosity is the strongest predictor of engagement with science \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">- \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">way above any demographic characteristic. However, science curiosity can vary by demographics.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Topics of interest\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">: \u003c/span> Adults (40 and younger) are most interested in nature, wildlife, and psychology/behavioral science. Our youngest participants are the ones most interested in climate change. Health and Medicine become more important with age.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Platforms Used\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Search engines and websites are most commonly used to find science content (public media). YouTube is also popular. TikTok is most commonly used by Gen Zers and is the least popular platform for science among millennials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Missing Audience\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Black and Hispanic millennial women seem to be the most frequently “missing” audience for science from platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. This is not the case for Gen Zers.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science Stories\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Stories that explain something audiences are curious about in nature and the environment are much more popular than any other type of story, including news about scientific discoveries and climate change.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Story Credibility\u003c/span>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: underline\">:\u003c/span> Curious Gen Zers trust their gut intuition about whether stories are credible. Millennials and open Gen Zers prioritize peer review and expertise.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Samples\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">As stated above, we collected data from four samples: a national sample of 2,000 participants (26% were millennials), a California-only sample of 500 participants (25% were millennials), a Bay Area sample of 500 participants (18% were millennials) and a Bay Area Latinx sample of 500 participants (35% were millennials). This allows us to both make inferences about what is true about younger (millennial and Gen Z) audiences in the U.S., generally, and to look at target audiences that are of specific interest to KQED and our other STEM partners in California — and more specifically, the Bay Area.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Generations\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16749 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-800x456.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"456\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-800x456.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1-768x438.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns1.png 960w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It is easy to forget that millennials are a fully adult audience. At the outset of our project, the youngest millennials were 22 years old. Now, near the end of 2021, millennials range from ages 25 to 40, and about 33% of millennials in our national sample say that they have children at home. In our \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What Does the Future Look Like in Science Media?\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> presentation, we also focused on Generation Z. There are not currently clear definitions of the start of this generation, but the oldest members of Gen Z were born in 1997 and are about 24 years old. Our survey only sampled adults who are legally able to consent to participate. Thus, our Generation Z sample ranges from 18 to 24 and does not represent the entire generation. We also include some analyses with Gen X (currently ages 41 to 56) and Baby Boomers (currently ages 57 to 75).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Science Curiosity\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Of utmost importance to this survey and to the other studies conducted as part of the Cracking the Code project was the identification of the ideal and “missing audiences.” A “missing audience” consists of individuals who are science curious, and thus ought to be engaging with science content. But for some unknown reason they are engaging relatively less than other “science curious” groups or not engaging at all. Someone who is science curious is an individual that is motivated to seek out science for enjoyment and not purely for information. Missing audiences may be engaging less with certain types of content and/or on certain types of platforms. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science curiosity is the key characteristic for attracting the ideal audience for science media and programming. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In our studies, we used the \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/pops.12396\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science Curiosity Scale\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">, developed by Dan Kahan and myself (with the help of our collaborators Katie Carpenter, Laura Helft and Kathleen Hall Jamieson). This scale, which is designed to appear to participants like a marketing/interests type survey, hides our behavioral and self-reported measures of science interest in an array of items asking about other interests, like business, sports, and entertainment. The purpose of this is to lower the risk of participants answering the questions based on what they think the researchers want to hear. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Scores on our science curiosity scale strongly predict people’s engagement with science media. We have demonstrated this over and over in each of the studies conducted as part of the Cracking the Code project. Furthermore, in this current survey, science curiosity strongly predicts the frequency with which each of the samples (i.e., the national sample, the California sample, the Bay Area sample, and the Bay Area Latinx sample) report accessing science content.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We call this our key characteristic of the target audience because science curiosity is a stronger predictor than any other demographic characteristic. Science curiosity predicts 33% of the variance in participants' responses to the “frequency of accessing science content” question. Compare that with race/ethnicity (which only explains 1.5% of the variance), gender (which only explains 0.48%), or even generation (which accounts only for 0.28% of the variance).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It is worth noting, however, that science curiosity scores can vary based on demographic characteristics. Across many of our studies, we have found small, but statistically significant differences in average science curiosity scores based on gender and generation.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Curious Audiences\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Science curiosity scores among this study’s participants range from approximately -2 to 2. We can divide participants' science curiosity scores into quartiles to create four audience segments. The bottom 25% of participants based on their science curiosity scores (scores up to -0.56) are labeled as “uninterested” and seen as not a useful audience to target. Participants who score between the 25th and 50th percentile (scores ranging from -0.56 to 0.03) are labeled “indifferent” and are also not likely to want to engage with science content. Participants who score between the 50th and 75th percentiles (scores ranging from 0.04 to 0.62) are labeled “open” and could be a potential audience for science content. Finally, the top 25% of participants based on their science curiosity scores (scores 0.62 and higher) are seen as the target audience for science content.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-16750\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-800x454.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"454\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-800x454.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2-768x435.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns2.png 947w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Topics of Interest\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Having defined our target audience – science curious millennials and Gen Zers, one of our first questions was what science topics are they most interested in? We included 15 different science-related topics (e.g., plants and animals, climate change, health and medicine, physics, etc.). Interestingly, “Plants & Animals” was the third ranked topic for each of the generations: Gen Zers, Millennials, Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. Gen Z was the only generation to have climate change in their top three (ranked 2nd), and Psychology/Behavioral Science appeared in the top three for both Gen Zers (1st) and Millennials (2nd). “Health & Medicine” was a top three interest for Gen Xers (2nd) and Baby Boomers (1st), possibly suggesting that this topic becomes more important as participants age.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16751 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-800x449.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"449\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-800x449.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-160x90.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3-768x431.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns3.png 951w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003cbr />\n\u003cb>Platforms Used\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We also wanted to know what platforms are used by younger adult audiences to access science content, specifically that from “public media.” For this item, we asked how frequently participants access science content from public media that appears live on the radio, streamed live online, on podcasts, on-demand via smart speaker, on specific websites, search engines, stories linked on social media, via YouTube videos, on TikTok videos, Instagram and Facebook, newsletters, or public media stories sent by friends. Over half of the curious millennials in the sample reported regularly going directly to websites, looking for content via search engines, or finding content on YouTube. Around 60% or greater of curious Gen Zers regularly seek such content from social media and/or YouTube, and approximately 50% will regularly use a search engine. Furthermore, while regular TikTok use is fairly low among curious millennials (15%), it is much higher among curious Gen Zers (over 30%).\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Missing Audiences for the Platforms\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In our research, we have defined “missing audiences” as those science curious individuals who ought to be engaging with science content, but for some unknown reason, are not (or are doing so relatively less than other science curious groups). We used this survey data to determine who some of the missing audiences for science content on particular platforms may be. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In the presentation I note three important points to consider. First, participants' responses are self-reported. We asked them how frequently they engaged with public science media content on the platforms. Participants may inflate or downplay the frequency with which they engage with the various platforms or even ignore the “science content” and/or “public media” aspects of the question and just report how frequently they think they engage with the platforms generally. Second, I point out that what is the desired level of frequency of use may vary across platforms. For example, we may expect that “daily” is an appropriate frequency of engagement for social media but not for newsletters (which may tend to be delivered weekly or monthly). Third, we looked at specific audiences that were requested by KQED team members. These were not audiences that were found to be missing after digging through the data, but audiences that we set out to see if they were less engaged than their counterparts.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Keeping this in mind, we examined whether each of the following four audiences are “missing” audiences on a subset of the platforms. Note that white males were not examined as a potential missing audience as prior data and available audience metrics suggest they are the group most engaged.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Women of Color:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Millennials and Gen Zers who are Black and/or Hispanic/Latina/x and identify as women;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Men of Color:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Millennials and Gen Zers who identify as men who are Black and/or Hispanic/Latino/x;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>White, College-educated Moms\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">: White millennial women with at least some college and who have children at home;\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cb>Women\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">: Millennials and Gen Zers who identify as women, regardless of their other demographic characteristics.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Below are the key findings about the four “missing” audiences our research focused on: \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Millennial women of color (Black and Hispanic/Latina/x millennial women) seem to be the most frequently “missing audience” for science content on platforms such as TikTok, podcasts, live radio, and YouTube. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Gen Z women of color are NOT missing audiences on these platforms. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Gen Zers and millennial women are generally a missing audience for podcasts. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most younger adults are missing audiences for live radio. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most curious younger adults report using newsletters at least monthly, therefore, newsletters would be a good tactic to try out when targeting younger audiences.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Types of Science Stories and Credibility\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We also looked at what types of science stories younger adults prefer and how they determine whether those stories contain credible content. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Most curious young adults said that they prefer stories that explain something that they are curious about in nature and/or the environment, and very few curious young adults said that they preferred stories about climate change (even though Gen Zers had climate change as one of their top three topics of interest). Climate change stories were more popular among the young adult samples from the Bay Area than the national sample, but even these participants expressed a greater preference for the explanatory stories. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We followed up with the Bay Area sample to ask how they prefer to read stories about climate change and the vast majority (73%) said that they prefer to read the story online as opposed to listening to a story (radio or on-demand audio, 17%), watching a TikTok video (6%), or reading a Twitter thread (3%). However, when we look by age groups, we see that although more than half of Gen Zers prefer to read a story online, 33% would prefer to see a TikTok video.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Finally, when we asked millennials and Gen Zers how important various factors are when deciding whether a story is credible, we were happy to see that expertise and peer-reviewed content appear in the top 5 for both curious millennials and curious Gen Zers. However, “gut intuition” was the second most important factor to curious Gen Zers. This mirrors a finding from our first survey, which suggested that millennials and younger adults (at that time) trusted their gut intuition about whether a story was credible. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Conclusion\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We can’t directly compare this survey to the one conducted in 2018 for a variety of reasons, some methodological (e.g., different sampling companies with different approximations of nationally representative) and some societal (e.g., potential changes due to important events like COVID-19 pandemic). However, we can look for commonalities between the two and we can consider this survey as a snapshot of science media consumption behavior in 2021. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Again, here are the key takeaways:\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16753 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-800x456.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"456\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-800x456.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4-768x438.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns4.png 957w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-16752 aligncenter\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-800x453.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"453\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-800x453.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-160x91.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5-768x435.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/ns5.png 948w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We will continue to provide results from this survey over the next few months, so stay tuned.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003ciframe\n src='https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_zsw_gXicB6lSTvunvqlutUtzMFDR_f/preview?embedded=true'\n title='https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_zsw_gXicB6lSTvunvqlutUtzMFDR_f/preview'\n width='640'\n height='480'\n frameborder='no'>\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/about/16748/science-engagement-a-new-survey-in-2021",
"authors": [
"byline_about_16748"
],
"programs": [
"about_583"
],
"categories": [
"about_62"
],
"tags": [
"about_667",
"about_580",
"about_700",
"about_699",
"about_715",
"about_701",
"about_626",
"about_44",
"about_702",
"about_703"
],
"featImg": "about_16756",
"label": "about_583"
},
"about_13669": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "about_13669",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "13669",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1556729506000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "about",
"term": 583
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1556729506,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "\u003ci>Cracking the Code:\u003c/i> Survey Results on Millennials and Their Science Curiosity",
"title": "\u003ci>Cracking the Code:\u003c/i> Survey Results on Millennials and Their Science Curiosity",
"headTitle": "Cracking the Code | About KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>Science media professionals make decisions every day. They usually involve editorial choices: what topic to cover; how to distribute the content (on a digital platform or social media, for example); what other packaging elements should be included (a video or an image); and what type of outreach will encourage engagement (a newsletter or alert). These decisions are based on the real-world experience and judgment of the media professional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What is needed beyond these real-world professional “hunches” is the input of science communication researchers. Empirical researchers can equip media professionals with evidence about their hunches that are most likely to affect their reporting and producing practice by collaborating and bringing together media practices with their research.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignright\">When it comes to science content discovery, millennials are most likely to rely on their own instinct, rather than recommendations or familiar/trusted sources. \u003ccite>Key finding from millennial survey\u003c/cite>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/i> is a project to do just that. Its goal is to examine how to design and adopt new audience and editorial practices that combine the expertise of media professionals and science communication researchers to increase engagement with science media. We specifically want to study the millennial generation because it is soon to be the largest adult generation in the U.S., and this generation has already radically changed media consumption habits and will continue to do so. Ultimately, KQED believes the future of public media depends on reaching and keeping this critical audience engaged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As a result, KQED undertook its first research project: conduct the first ever national survey of millennial science media habits and examine how political views, religious values and science curiosity interact with one another to influence science media consumption and engagement for this generation. The collaboration for this survey included KQED, \u003ca href=\"https://jacobsmedia.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Jacobs Media Strategies,\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"http://www.scicommcog.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Science Communication and Cognition Lab at Texas Tech University,\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://www.culturalcognition.net/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School\u003c/a> with funding from \u003ca href=\"https://www.templeton.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Templeton Religion Trust\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Temple World Charity Foundation\u003c/a> with additional support from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.nsf.gov/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">National Science Foundation.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This collaboration embraced a unique approach to fact finding. Our goal was to use the procedures common in academic social science research to learn more about who does (and who does not) consume science-related media, how they consume it, who is science curious and how that curiosity could or could not affect cultural behavior.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Key Findings About Millennial Science Media Consumption Habits\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Millennials make up about a quarter to a third of the missing audience, depending on platform; meaning that they are represented in the missing audience in a way that is roughly proportional to their size of the US population. The same seems to be true for people of color\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>When it comes to science content discovery, millennials are most likely to rely on their own instinct, rather than recommendations or familiar/trusted sources. Yet, expertise in the field is also an important criterion in determining the credibility of science content among millennials\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Science curiosity and gender strongly predict different types of interest in science, such as lifescience, computer science and technology and health and wellness\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Consistent with prior research, science curiosity is overall a stronger predictor of climate change beliefs than educational attainment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Most millennials say they can separate their personal political views from their opinions on science\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/pressroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2019/04/KQED-Surveys-FINAL041619-2.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The results of both surveys and summary findings can be found here.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>About Our Survey Methods\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nAs is common in academic research, we began our study by investigating millennials' science media consumption habits in a large exploratory study. We call this the \"exploratory phase.\" We then followed it up with a smaller study designed to replicate portions of the exploratory phase in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. We call this the \"verification stage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Exploratory Phase\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nIn the exploratory phase, KQED contracted Jacobs Media Strategies to survey a large number of millennials and non millennials to provide an initial assessment and comparison of science media consumption habits, and to examine their levels of science curiosity. For this nationwide sample of millennials and non-millennials, Jacobs recruited from SoapBoxSample’s online panel. In addition, the same survey questions were asked of a sample of regular science media consumers who were recruited from KQED’s and its public media partners’ database members. The survey instrument used to measure science curiosity, developed by Dan Kahan, Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, and Asheley Landrum, Science Communication and Cognition Lab at Texas Tech University, is a tool used to predict engagement with, and interest in, science. During the exploratory phase data was also collected on millennial and non-millennial media habits, cultural and ideological behaviors, and spiritual and religious practice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The exploratory study found that millennials were substantially more science curious than other age cohorts, and suggested that this generation makes up a large portion of the \"missing science content audience.\" The missing audience here is defined as millennials that are science curious and are not engaging with public media at least monthly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Verification Phase\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the verification study, researchers Dan Kahan, Asheley Landrum and Matthew Motta, a postdoctoral fellow of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, sought to verify portions of the Jacobs study; specifically the findings related to the demographic profiles of science curious people who compose the missing audience. The verification study fielded a nationally representative sample of American adults, recruited via YouGov. The purpose of this study was to build on what we learned in the exploratory phase, and to determine whether or not the exploratory results for science curious millennials held in nationally representative data.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Using an updated metric for finding who can be considered part of the \"missing science content audience,\" the verification study reaffirmed that a large number of millennials are both high in science curiosity and low in science media consumption. However, the study did not find that millennials were substantially more science curious than other generational cohorts as the first study did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The differences found between the exploratory and verification studies may be partly attributed to the use of different non probability sampling methods used by the survey companies both to recruit participants from their online panel for our study as well as to populate their online panels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Future Research\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nFuture research will continue to improve upon how we measure the size and demographic composition of the missing science content audience. In order to measure science media viewing across a wide range of platforms, we asked respondents to self-report media consumption habits in both the exploratory and verification stages of this research. Although this approach is efficient, one potential issue with self-reports is that people may inaccurately recall the types of media they use, and how often they use it; often leading to overestimates of consumption habits. This likely does not influence our conclusions about the composition of the engaged and missing science audiences, but it could be the case that our estimates of the overall size of each audience may be too large.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In future research, we will address this issue by developing behavioral measures of individuals’ science media consumption habits. Rather than ask people about their science media viewing habits across a wide range of platforms, we will instead develop ways to observe science media consumption on just one or two platforms (as these types of measures tend to be more time intensive to administer than self-reports). Our hope is that results from future research can complement those observed from the exploratory and verification stages of this project by providing a sense of the extent to which self-reported measures may be overestimating science media consumption.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We are looking forward to expanding our understanding of millennials’ science media consumption habits through future research and testing. Thank you for your interest in this project. The results of both surveys are included starting on page four of the document below.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[googleapps domain=\"drive\" dir=\"file/d/1jkD8-eVfwha3MhKu6bGExxng0Z-gSwiO/preview\" query=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"color: white\">[ad fullwidth]\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-14542\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-800x104.png\" alt=\"Cracking the Code\" width=\"800\" height=\"104\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-800x104.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-160x21.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-768x100.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1020x133.png 1020w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1200x156.png 1200w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1920x250.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "13669 https://ww2.kqed.org/about?p=13669&preview=true&preview_id=13669",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/about/2019/05/01/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1342,
"hasGoogleForm": true,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 20
},
"modified": 1644284080,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Science media professionals make decisions every day. They usually involve editorial choices: what topic to cover; how to distribute the content (on a digital platform or social media, for example); what other packaging elements should be included (a video or an image); and what type of outreach will encourage engagement (a newsletter or alert). These",
"title": "\u003ci>Cracking the Code:\u003c/i> Survey Results on Millennials and Their Science Curiosity | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "\u003ci>Cracking the Code:\u003c/i> Survey Results on Millennials and Their Science Curiosity",
"datePublished": "2019-05-01T09:51:46-07:00",
"dateModified": "2022-02-07T17:34:40-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Sue Ellen McCann, Principal Investigator",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"path": "/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Science media professionals make decisions every day. They usually involve editorial choices: what topic to cover; how to distribute the content (on a digital platform or social media, for example); what other packaging elements should be included (a video or an image); and what type of outreach will encourage engagement (a newsletter or alert). These decisions are based on the real-world experience and judgment of the media professional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What is needed beyond these real-world professional “hunches” is the input of science communication researchers. Empirical researchers can equip media professionals with evidence about their hunches that are most likely to affect their reporting and producing practice by collaborating and bringing together media practices with their research.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignright\">When it comes to science content discovery, millennials are most likely to rely on their own instinct, rather than recommendations or familiar/trusted sources. \u003ccite>Key finding from millennial survey\u003c/cite>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>Cracking the Code: Influencing Millennial Science Engagement\u003c/i> is a project to do just that. Its goal is to examine how to design and adopt new audience and editorial practices that combine the expertise of media professionals and science communication researchers to increase engagement with science media. We specifically want to study the millennial generation because it is soon to be the largest adult generation in the U.S., and this generation has already radically changed media consumption habits and will continue to do so. Ultimately, KQED believes the future of public media depends on reaching and keeping this critical audience engaged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As a result, KQED undertook its first research project: conduct the first ever national survey of millennial science media habits and examine how political views, religious values and science curiosity interact with one another to influence science media consumption and engagement for this generation. The collaboration for this survey included KQED, \u003ca href=\"https://jacobsmedia.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Jacobs Media Strategies,\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"http://www.scicommcog.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Science Communication and Cognition Lab at Texas Tech University,\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://www.culturalcognition.net/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School\u003c/a> with funding from \u003ca href=\"https://www.templeton.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Templeton Religion Trust\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Temple World Charity Foundation\u003c/a> with additional support from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.nsf.gov/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">National Science Foundation.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This collaboration embraced a unique approach to fact finding. Our goal was to use the procedures common in academic social science research to learn more about who does (and who does not) consume science-related media, how they consume it, who is science curious and how that curiosity could or could not affect cultural behavior.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Key Findings About Millennial Science Media Consumption Habits\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Millennials make up about a quarter to a third of the missing audience, depending on platform; meaning that they are represented in the missing audience in a way that is roughly proportional to their size of the US population. The same seems to be true for people of color\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>When it comes to science content discovery, millennials are most likely to rely on their own instinct, rather than recommendations or familiar/trusted sources. Yet, expertise in the field is also an important criterion in determining the credibility of science content among millennials\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Science curiosity and gender strongly predict different types of interest in science, such as lifescience, computer science and technology and health and wellness\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Consistent with prior research, science curiosity is overall a stronger predictor of climate change beliefs than educational attainment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Most millennials say they can separate their personal political views from their opinions on science\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/pressroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2019/04/KQED-Surveys-FINAL041619-2.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The results of both surveys and summary findings can be found here.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>About Our Survey Methods\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nAs is common in academic research, we began our study by investigating millennials' science media consumption habits in a large exploratory study. We call this the \"exploratory phase.\" We then followed it up with a smaller study designed to replicate portions of the exploratory phase in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. We call this the \"verification stage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Exploratory Phase\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nIn the exploratory phase, KQED contracted Jacobs Media Strategies to survey a large number of millennials and non millennials to provide an initial assessment and comparison of science media consumption habits, and to examine their levels of science curiosity. For this nationwide sample of millennials and non-millennials, Jacobs recruited from SoapBoxSample’s online panel. In addition, the same survey questions were asked of a sample of regular science media consumers who were recruited from KQED’s and its public media partners’ database members. The survey instrument used to measure science curiosity, developed by Dan Kahan, Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, and Asheley Landrum, Science Communication and Cognition Lab at Texas Tech University, is a tool used to predict engagement with, and interest in, science. During the exploratory phase data was also collected on millennial and non-millennial media habits, cultural and ideological behaviors, and spiritual and religious practice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The exploratory study found that millennials were substantially more science curious than other age cohorts, and suggested that this generation makes up a large portion of the \"missing science content audience.\" The missing audience here is defined as millennials that are science curious and are not engaging with public media at least monthly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Verification Phase\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the verification study, researchers Dan Kahan, Asheley Landrum and Matthew Motta, a postdoctoral fellow of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, sought to verify portions of the Jacobs study; specifically the findings related to the demographic profiles of science curious people who compose the missing audience. The verification study fielded a nationally representative sample of American adults, recruited via YouGov. The purpose of this study was to build on what we learned in the exploratory phase, and to determine whether or not the exploratory results for science curious millennials held in nationally representative data.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Using an updated metric for finding who can be considered part of the \"missing science content audience,\" the verification study reaffirmed that a large number of millennials are both high in science curiosity and low in science media consumption. However, the study did not find that millennials were substantially more science curious than other generational cohorts as the first study did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The differences found between the exploratory and verification studies may be partly attributed to the use of different non probability sampling methods used by the survey companies both to recruit participants from their online panel for our study as well as to populate their online panels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Future Research\u003c/strong>\u003cbr />\nFuture research will continue to improve upon how we measure the size and demographic composition of the missing science content audience. In order to measure science media viewing across a wide range of platforms, we asked respondents to self-report media consumption habits in both the exploratory and verification stages of this research. Although this approach is efficient, one potential issue with self-reports is that people may inaccurately recall the types of media they use, and how often they use it; often leading to overestimates of consumption habits. This likely does not influence our conclusions about the composition of the engaged and missing science audiences, but it could be the case that our estimates of the overall size of each audience may be too large.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In future research, we will address this issue by developing behavioral measures of individuals’ science media consumption habits. Rather than ask people about their science media viewing habits across a wide range of platforms, we will instead develop ways to observe science media consumption on just one or two platforms (as these types of measures tend to be more time intensive to administer than self-reports). Our hope is that results from future research can complement those observed from the exploratory and verification stages of this project by providing a sense of the extent to which self-reported measures may be overestimating science media consumption.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We are looking forward to expanding our understanding of millennials’ science media consumption habits through future research and testing. Thank you for your interest in this project. The results of both surveys are included starting on page four of the document below.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003ciframe\n src='https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jkD8-eVfwha3MhKu6bGExxng0Z-gSwiO/preview?embedded=true'\n title='https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jkD8-eVfwha3MhKu6bGExxng0Z-gSwiO/preview'\n width='640'\n height='480'\n frameborder='no'>\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"color: white\">\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-14542\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-800x104.png\" alt=\"Cracking the Code\" width=\"800\" height=\"104\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-800x104.png 800w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-160x21.png 160w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-768x100.png 768w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1020x133.png 1020w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1200x156.png 1200w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/19/2019/04/logo-left-1920x250.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" />\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/about/13669/cracking-the-code-survey-results-on-millennials-and-their-science-curiosity",
"authors": [
"byline_about_13669"
],
"programs": [
"about_583"
],
"tags": [
"about_580",
"about_715"
],
"featImg": "about_13677",
"label": "about_583"
}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "\"KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvbmV3cy9jYXRlZ29yeS9iYXktY3VyaW91cy1wb2RjYXN0L2ZlZWQvcG9kY2FzdA",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1MDAyODE4NTgz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "\"KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvbmV3cy9zZXJpZXMvamVycnlicm93bi9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5Nzk2MzI2MTEx",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vc29sZG91dA"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM4MjU5Nzg2MzI3",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM0NTcwODQ2MjY2",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/about?tag=nationalsurveys": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 0,
"postsToRender": 9
},
"tag": null,
"vitalsOnly": true,
"totalRequested": 3,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 3,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"about_16895",
"about_16748",
"about_13669"
]
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"subscriptionsReducer": {},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"about_715": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_715",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "715",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "National Surveys",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "National Surveys | KQED",
"ogDescription": null,
"imageData": {
"ogImageSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 630
},
"twImageSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
},
"twitterCard": "summary_large_image"
}
},
"ttid": 715,
"slug": "nationalsurveys",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/nationalsurveys"
},
"about_583": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_583",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "583",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Cracking the Code",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Cracking the Code | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 583,
"slug": "cracking-the-code",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/program/cracking-the-code"
},
"about_580": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_580",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "580",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "crackingthecode",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "crackingthecode | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 580,
"slug": "crackingthecode",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/crackingthecode"
},
"about_62": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_62",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "62",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 62,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/category/san-francisco"
},
"about_667": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_667",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "667",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Asheley Landrum",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Asheley Landrum | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 667,
"slug": "asheley-landrum",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/asheley-landrum"
},
"about_700": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_700",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "700",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "insects",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "insects | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 700,
"slug": "insects",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/insects"
},
"about_699": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_699",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "699",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "jocelyn steinke",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "jocelyn steinke | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 699,
"slug": "jocelyn-steinke",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/jocelyn-steinke"
},
"about_701": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_701",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "701",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "nature series",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "nature series | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 701,
"slug": "nature-series",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/nature-series"
},
"about_626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "NSF",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "NSF | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 626,
"slug": "nsf",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/nsf"
},
"about_44": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_44",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "44",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "pbs",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "pbs | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 44,
"slug": "pbs",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/pbs"
},
"about_702": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_702",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "702",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "pbs digital studios",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "pbs digital studios | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 702,
"slug": "pbs-digital-studios",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/pbs-digital-studios"
},
"about_703": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "about_703",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "about",
"id": "703",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "wildlife",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "wildlife | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 703,
"slug": "wildlife",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/about/tag/wildlife"
}
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"localStorageReducer": {},
"browserHistoryReducer": [],
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {},
"restaurantData": []
},
"location": {
"pathname": "/about/tag/nationalsurveys",
"previousPathname": "/"
}
}
