Science in Public 2019 Inclusion Policy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Moving Toward Inclusion: Participant Responses to the Inclusive SciComm Symposium
Frontiers in Communication, 2020
This study shares key findings from evaluation research for Inclusive SciComm: A Symposium on Advancing Inclusive Public Engagement with Science. The symposium, organized by the University of Rhode Island's Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting with support from partner organizations, took place on September 28 and 29, 2018 at the University of Rhode Island. Pre-and post-symposium surveys showed that after attending the symposium, participants reported higher levels of knowledge about and confidence in implementing inclusive approaches to science communication. Participants also exhibited three types of response orientations: emotion, knowledge, and action.
The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study
2020
Inclusive science communication (ISC) is a new and broad term that encompasses all efforts to engage specific audiences in conversations or activities about science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) topics, including, but not limited to, public engagement, informal science learning, journalism, and formal science education. Unlike other approaches toward science communication, however, ISC research and practice is grounded in inclusion, equity, and intersectionality, making these concerns central to the goals, design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement of science communication efforts. Together, the diverse suite of insights and practices that inform ISC comprise an emerging movement. While there is a growing recognition of the value and urgency of inclusive approaches, there is little documented knowledge about the potential catalysts and barriers for this work. Without documentation, synthesis, and critical reflection, the movement cannot proceed as quickly as is warranted. The University of Rhode Island's Metcalf Institute conducted a landscape study to address this gap and clarify the state of ISC with support from The Kavli Foundation. This document summarizes the findings from interviews of thirty ISC leaders whose work spans career stages, disciplines, sectors, and modes. The study also was informed by input from attendees at the 2019 InclusiveSciComm Symposium, the 2019 Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) conference, the 2020 Advancing Research Impact in Society (ARIS) Summit, and informal conversations at other conferences held in 2020. What are the key traits of inclusive science communication? Inclusive science communication is fundamentally characterized by three key traits that must exist concurrently. While each trait is essential, any one of them alone is insufficient, and they are all linked by a common focus on equitable relationships. 1. Intentionality (e.g., regarding the audience, how "science" is defined, and how marginalized identities are, and have been, represented and supported) Appendix 2: Considerations about the Terminology of "Inclusive Science Communication" Appendix 3: Glossary Key Issue & Background Science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) have the potential to empower or marginalize individuals and communities. Similarly, the ways we communicate about STEMM and engage people in conversations about science can enrich not only the research itself, but also public participation, sense of belonging in STEMM fields, and societal benefits from STEMM (
2022
The session entitled "Open Science policy" was the last one of the workshop on Open science which took place November 11-13, 2022, in Castro Urdiales (Cantabria, Spain). This report includes the summary and the conclusions of the session
2021
Background: "Science Dissemination for Scholars with Disabilities" is a noteworthy topic which is still sparse and needs more attention by the scientific community. Objective: In order to increase interest in the study of science and on access to research without exclusion emphasis needs to be paid towards innovation within a scientific environment. Our hope is to encourage further consideration by the scientific community and present strategies that promote the full inclusion of scholars with disabilities in society. Methods: This work is the result of research experiences in the field of Science and Inclusion within the activities carried out at the ICTP Scientific Fabrication Laboratory of Trieste, in Italy, over the last eight years. Description of some issues on the use of open source digital technologies available at Scientific FabLabs to support education and scientific know-how for all are assessed, and a collection of interesting novel approaches developed in our SciFabLab are given as examples. The discussion is presented to motivate further research and give technological priorities. Results: We discuss and show concrete examples on how to make "almost anything" through Scientific FabLabs to disseminate science and remove practical barriers offering people with disabilities more independence and opportunities to study science. Standard theories of Disability in the STEM context are also discussed. Conclusions: This contribution is relevant from the point of view of the social model in that supportive digital tools developed at Scientific FabLabs can be manufactured with participation, assistance and presence by people with a disability. Through this class of Fablabs, we aim to sustain new generations of scientists without any exclusion.
Actionable Guidance for Creating Inclusive, Equitable, and Just Scientific Meetings
2021
Scientific meetings organized by professional organizations have been keystone activities of scientific culture and career advancement. They provide opportunities to share research results, promote discussion on current and emerging research and education needs, apprentice early career participants into the community, and foster professional partnerships. However, scientific meetings are not equally inviting or accessible for all scientists, particularly those from historically marginalized communities. Organizers of scientific meetings have historically not ensured diverse representation of speakers and those in leadership roles, or have not provided needed networking opportunities and professional learning to foster scientists from historically marginalized communities, who often do not have the visibility or networking opportunities needed for persistence and success in a scientific career. As a result, scientific meetings can be an isolating and stressful experience. People from historically excluded identities can encounter structural barriers, such as lack of childcare or safe bathroom spaces, and can experience harassment and bullying. Within professional societies, policies and procedures as well as unwritten norms, can perpetuate bias and exclusion. For instance, certain attire, hair styles, and speaking tone may be targeted as counter to historical norms of professionalism, which were established before BIPOC and women entered the STEM fields in larger numbers. But these challenges also present opportunities to change. Scientific meetings can instead serve as influential intervention points to advance an inclusive environment and climate for geoscientists from across institutions, career stages, and backgrounds. We present a few actionable strategies that professional societies and convening organizations can take before, during, and after scientific meetings to make them more equitable, accessible, and anti-racist. We offer guidance for scientific meeting policies, procedures, awards systems, and leadership opportunities to build structure for inclusion. We also share recommendations for how professional societies can support members to advocate for more equitable and anti-racist culture within scientific meetings and at their home institutions.
Transparency, openness and participation in science policy processes
Interfaces between Science and Society
Ours is a society that has relied since the Enlightenment era on a wide belief in science as a 'good' within it. The same can be said for technology. Modern ideology saw science as the road to truth and technology as a source of growth and welfare. There is no doubt that faith in technology has eroded in recent years as rapid and profound changes pervade its social environment. These changes are manifest in: Science has also become the focus of critical assessment. At present, science finds itself at a crossroads. On the one hand, scientific knowledge is greatly respected, as it has always been, as a source of information and culture, and as the provider of solutions both for technical and for social problems. On the other hand, science is losing its aura of neutrality and objectivity, and is raising growing ethical concerns (especially in the biological and medical sciences). Furthermore, in recent decades, scientific and public, media-driven, controversies (climate change, BSE, GMOs-to name just a few) reinforced public awareness that experts can and do disagree, and that their opinion is frequently influenced by professional, economic or political considerations.
10 Transparency, openness and participation in science policy processes
Ours is a society that has relied since the Enlightenment era on a wide belief in science as a 'good' within it. The same can be said for technology. Modern ideology saw science as the road to truth and technology as a source of growth and welfare. There is no doubt that faith in technology has eroded in recent years as rapid and profound changes pervade its social environment. These changes are manifest in: Science has also become the focus of critical assessment. At present, science finds itself at a crossroads. On the one hand, scientific knowledge is greatly respected, as it has always been, as a source of information and culture, and as the provider of solutions both for technical and for social problems. On the other hand, science is losing its aura of neutrality and objectivity, and is raising growing ethical concerns (especially in the biological and medical sciences). Furthermore, in recent decades, scientific and public, media-driven, controversies (climate change, BSE, GMOs-to name just a few) reinforced public awareness that experts can and do disagree, and that their opinion is frequently influenced by professional, economic or political considerations.
Inclusiveness and Diversity in Citizen Science
The Science of Citizen Science
An ‘inclusive citizen science’ practice encourages engagement from all members of society, whatever their social status, sociocultural origin, gender, religious affiliation, literacy level, or age. In this chapter we will first address the question of inclusiveness in citizen science and how this is tackled. We will analyse the current situation of a number of projects and initiatives within the Citizen Science COST Action CA15212 and the Horizon 2020 SwafS programme, examine the data, and discuss the main factors that encourage or hinder inclusiveness. We will offer recommendations for a possible plural participation in citizen science activities and reflect on how research is improved when diverse citizens are used as in-the-field experts. We will demonstrate how research questions can be fine-tuned and how research impacts are enhanced through citizen participation, with a focus on gender representation. Bottlenecks can occur when considering inclusiveness in citizen science, inc...