Table 2.
Rating of the importance of sources used for reporting science by journalists in Ghana.
| Source | Not important at all | Neither important nor unimportant | Quite important | Very important | Total number | Meana |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health professionals (e.g. doctors, nurses, pharmacists) | 0 (0%) | 4 (2.8%) | 22 (15.3%) | 118 (81.9%) | 144 | 3.79 |
| Scientists | 1 (0.7%) | 2 (1.4%) | 33 (23.6%) | 104 (74.3%) | 140 | 3.71 |
| Consumers | 2 (1.4%) | 14 (9.8%) | 56 (39.2) | 71 (49.7%) | 143 | 3.37 |
| Staff of science journals | 1 (0.8%) | 18 (13.6%) | 73 (55.3%) | 40 (30.3%) | 132 | 3.15 |
| Traditional or alternative medical practitioners (e.g. herbalists) | 5 (3.5%) | 19 (13.4%) | 74 (52.1%) | 44 (31.0%) | 142 | 3.11 |
| Public information officers | 5 (3.7%) | 21 (15.6%) | 70 (51.9%) | 39 (28.9%) | 135 | 3.06 |
| Staff of industry or business community | 6 (4.4%) | 33 (24.1%) | 69 (50.4%) | 29 (21.2%) | 137 | 2.88 |
| Staff of non-governmental organizations | 12 (9.0%) | 24 (17.9%) | 77 (57.5%) | 21 (15.7%) | 134 | 2.80 |
| Othersb | 5 (14.7%) | 11 (32.4%) | 12 (35.3%) | 6 (17.6%) | 34 | 2.56 |
a
The mean responses were calculated using 1 = not important at all, 2 = neither important nor unimportant, 3 = quite important, and 4 = very important.
b
Other sources cited were students, politicians, and websites. Because of the low number of other sources which the respondents cited, findings related to other sources will not be described in the text.