Science communication: frequently public, occasionally intellectual (original) (raw)
Related papers
and notably in a Cold War context -public communication and literacy in science became government policy issues. More recently, and increasingly rapidly, this explicit concern with public communication of science in policy, educational and scientific circles has spread through other social sectors and around the world. Public communication of science is a recognised policy issue and an object of study and analysis across the globe. Scientific discoveries and research findings are constituted in the act of communication, that is, in publication for the attention and critical scrutiny of peers. Professional communication takes place by long-established means through academic journals, the best-known of which have continuous histories of over 150 years. The sociological and institutional characteristics of communication of science within and between scientific communities are distinct from those of public communication of science. This professional communication is sometimes referred to as 'scientific communication' to distinguish it from 'science communication', in which attention is given to the challenges of communicating often highly specialised and complex information with non-specialist members of the public. Based on this distinction there have grown sets of professional practices, of cultural institutions, of educational programmes and of research activity labelled as science communication, or some nearequivalent. Public communication of science has often been conceptualised in terms of gaps and bridges between scientists and their institutions, on the one hand, and the rest of society, on the other.
Rethinking science communication as the social conversation around science
Journal of Science Communication, 2021
In this essay the authors reflect on some recent trends in science communication research, celebrating it as an inherently interdisciplinary endeavour. Some current tendencies in science communication are more limiting, however: they present theoretical and strategic prescriptions that do not adquately reflect the variety and cultural diversity of science communication internationally. Rethinking science communication in the context of such diverse practices and cultural reorientations, the authors revise some of their own views and revisit notions of communication as conversation to propose an inclusive definition of science communication as the social conversation around science.
Vital and vulnerable: science communication as a university subject (chapter)
Science Communication in the World – practices, theories and trends, 241-257, 2012
Over nearly three decades, science communication has become established as a subject of teaching and research in universities across the world. Its standing as an academic discipline continues to be debated, but graduate degree programmes and doctoral research in the field are increasing. Partly reflecting its inherent multi-and interdisciplinary content, science communication is embedded in different institutions in different ways. These developments have been driven mainly by individual champions, but in some cases also by institutional and government policies. The diversity of science communication programmes reflects in part the various histories and institutional affiliations of the programmes. The diversity can be seen as a sign of the subject's vitality but it is also a condition of its vulnerability. Many science communication teaching programmes have given rise to consultancies, applied research, publishing and, perhaps most notably, doctoral research, but information from the promoters of science communication programmes indicates that some programmes are particularly exposed to the rationalisation affecting higher education institutions in many countries. Science communication's position between and across disciplines and departments may mean it is not always well equipped to defend itself just when its need is most apparent.
Science communication-an emerging discipline
Several publications have sought to define the field of science communication and review current issues and recent research. But the status of science communication is uncertain in disciplinary terms. This commentary considers two dimensions of the status of discipline as they apply to science communication -the clarity with which the field is defined and the level of development of theories to guide formal studies. It argues that further theoretical development is needed to support science communication's full emergence as a discipline.
Transcending the horizon of public science dissemination. A foundational philosophical reflection on the science communication paradigm, 2023
This manuscript investigates and aims to transcend inherent paradigmatic challenges in public science dissemination by reflecting upon the science communication paradigm in which both science dissemination research and practice are embedded. Public science dissemination is within this work defined as the translating, curating, and transferring of scientific knowledge via science intermediaries, encompassing a broad and diverse spectrum of professions and backgrounds, to members of the public, enabling them to actively consider and potentially use the scientific information they receive. This form of science communication is to play a pivotal role in translating intricate scientific knowledge to the public and facilitating knowledge transfer, building a bridge between the scientific and public realms, countering misinformation, and addressing public distrust in science, especially in times of increasing mediatisation. However, contemporary research in science communication reveals concerns about a paradigm crisis and various scholars propose revisions to the existing, failing science communication paradigm in which public science dissemination is embedded. One of these proposed revisions involves evaluating and safeguarding the quality of science communication. Within this manuscript, we will identify quality criteria for interactive and creative science dissemination practices, thus contributing to these paradigmatic revisions. Simultaneously, we will reflect upon this scientific revision and question whether it is foundational enough to facilitate a paradigmatic shift, as some proponents claim. In other words, we will also examine the field of science communication research itself and underlying foundations of science communication. While the primary focus in the existing literature on science communication is directed towards the public, there is also a need for introspection within the subfield and the subculture itself. The ‘science’ of science communication grapples with various internal challenges that are currently underexposed. To unveil and address these challenges, this research undertakes a foundational inquiry and attempts to articulate various persistent ‘malaises’ in science communication that are potential barriers to a genuine paradigm shift. However, within this manuscript we will not be looking for definite answers to research questions regarding public science dissemination. We will rather be posing foundational questions to inquire and challenge unquestioned evident and normalised presumptions in our contemporary science communication paradigm. These questions are needed to uncover blind spots in a paradigm that we cannot see, but that leads our practice, nonetheless. This overarching rationale and aim serve as the bedrock of this manuscript. Multiple reflection layers have been introduced throughout the manuscript, including a reflection on science dissemination as a (research) practice, science communication as a (failing) paradigm, the interconnectedness between science communication and science itself, the scientific gaze and its method(ology), the relation between language, epistemology and ontology, and the Ph.D. manuscript itself as an act of science dissemination. All these layers play an essential role in the manuscript and they are integral components of the knowledge being created concerning science dissemination. Also, various research methods were employed to conduct a paradigmatic discourse inquiry within the science communication subculture and subfield. These methods encompassed a systematic review, face validity, co-creation, participatory observation and contemplation, discourse analysis, and ‘observational’ literature study. An important key finding of this research is that various foundational malaises and blind spots in science communication research and practice are inherently intertwined with the scientific endeavour and our Zeitgeist. Additionally, contemporary revisions are not foundational enough if they build upon the same underlying assumptions of the science communication paradigm that is considered to be failing, rendering the proposed revisions for a paradigmatic shift rhetorical. Another key finding is that for the dissemination and communication of science to be meaningful, discourse – thinking – acting must be aligned. This might seem straightforward, yet in practice, disruptions in this connection are commonly observed. Communicators must ensure that their communication is ‘adequate’, ‘correct’, and ‘truthful’. Furthermore, transcending the paradigmatic boundaries of science (communication) necessitates the inclusion of other ways of knowing without assimilating them. This foundational philosophical reflection on science communication research and science dissemination practice aims to contribute to meaningful public science dissemination and the transcendence of paradigmatic boundaries in science (dissemination research). Investigating and contemplating the science communication paradigm is valuable from a scientific perspective, as the pursuit of scientific knowledge and its communication are inherently interconnected. This manuscript should therefore not be merely read as a work about public science dissemination, but also as a reflection on science through a study of the science communication paradigm. Furthermore, from a societal perspective this research is valuable given the profound impact of science (communication) on society at large. Inquiring paradigmatic barriers within science communication and the blind spots in its subfield and subculture from an insider’s perspective is crucial for both the scientific and the public realms, especially when we consider that researchers have grown accustomed to these barriers and adapted to them in their (systematic) practice, while members of the public lack the ‘insider’ knowledge necessary to distinguish and address these barriers. Keywords – archeosophy, boxology, buzzwords, crises in science, evaluation framework, interdisciplinary, knowledge translation, logocentrism, meaningful communication, metaphorical thinking, methodosophy, modelling, outformation, paradigm, paradigmatic boundaries, paradigmatic discourse inquiry, paradigmatic reflection game, Ph.D. studies, philosophy of science, poetics, public science dissemination, quality assessment, research malaises, science communication, science dissemination tool, science intermediaries, semantic triangle, subculture, systematic review, wayfaring, Zeitgeist. Cited as: Van Even, P. (2023). Transcending the horizon of public science dissemination. A foundational philosophical reflection on the science communication paradigm [Doctoral thesis, KU Leuven]. KU Leuven. ISBN 9789081428019
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifi cally highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal confl icts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Taking Stock and Re-Examining the Role of Science Communication
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2021
Eight science communication research projects have been funded by the European Commission since 2018. These projects are a response to one of the European Commission's 'Science with and for Society' (SwafS) funding calls-"SwafS-19: Taking stock and reexamining the role of science communication." Together these projects have received almost €10 million in research funding, and each has been affected to some extent by the COVID-19 global pandemic. This paper provides an overview of the eight projects, how they adapted to the challenges caused by the pandemic, and the subsequent implications for science communication policy and research funding.
What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions
American Journal of Botany, 2009
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifi cally highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal confl icts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Science communication reconsidered
Nature …, 2009
communication: public engagement and science journalism. These two main themes are interrelated; the dissemination of knowledge is one part of a multifaceted approach toward increasing public involvement in science issues and decision-making. We conclude with specific recommendations for moving forward.