Communication and Engagement with Science and Technology

Issues and Dilemmas - A Reader in Science Communication

John K. Gilbert, Susan M. Stocklmayer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136662683
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Science communication seeks to engage individuals and groups with evidence-based information about the nature, outcomes, and social consequences of science and technology. This text provides an overview of this burgeoning field ? the issues with which it deals, important influences that affect it, the challenges that it faces. It introduces readers to the research-based literature about science communication and shows how it relates to actual or potential practice. A "Further Exploration" section provides suggestions for activities that readers might do to explore the issues raised. Organized around five themes, each chapter addresses a different aspect of science communication:

• Models of science communication – theory into practice

• Challenges in communicating science

• Major themes in science communication

• Informal learning

• Communication of contemporary issues in science and society

Relevant for all those interested in and concerned about current issues and developments in science communication, this volume is an ideal text for courses and a must-have resource for faculty, students, and professionals in this field.

PART I

Models of Science Communication—Theory into Practice

1

TOWARDS A ‘DESIGN APPROACH’ TO SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

Masakata Ogawa

Introduction

Demands for science communication activities from various sectors are increasing worldwide, and progress in science communication research is becoming more visible than ever before. Also visible is a kind of evolution of the emphasis of science communication, from public understanding of science to public engagement with science, and beyond. There has also been a recent overwhelming rush of monographs on science communication with various “flavors” (e.g. Bauer & Bucchi, 2007; Bennett & Jennings, 2011; Cheng et al., 2008; Kahlor & Stout, 2010; Russell, 2010). However, it is difficult to grasp the overall picture of science communication because such prominence has been achieved by many different stakeholders and initiatives, including national and regional governments, universities, museums and science centers, media, citizen groups, non-profit organizations and non-government organizations, as well as attentive individuals. This has not occurred systematically, but rather autonomously and mutually independently.

Trench and Bucchi (2010) have contributed a very short but insightful commentary on the status quo of research in science communication and its disciplinary nature. Regarding the current situation of science communication research, they argued that: (1) science communication as a subject of teaching and research has appeared mainly as a response to external needs; (2) it is shaped as much by political and institutional concerns as by intellectual interests; (3) many of the publications in the period 2008–10, including their own, reflected not only the intention to support the formal study of science communication and to promote its further development, but also the difficulty of achieving theoretical unity; and (4) no full length publication, so far as they are aware, proposes a coherent framework for thinking about key issues in science communication. On the disciplinary aspects of science communication, they mentioned that science communication “is not (yet) established as an academic discipline with strong interdisciplinary characteristics or as a sub-discipline in the still-growing field of communication studies.” (p.4)

In a sense, therefore, we have not yet seen either the grand picture of the science communication “jigsaw puzzle,” or of its missing pieces, if there are any.

Theoretical efforts in the area have included explorations of an appropriate definition of science communication itself (e.g., Bryant, 2003; Burns, O’Connor & Stocklmayer, 2003) and its disciplinary nature (e.g., Trench & Bucchi, 2010): these have been explored because of a general belief in the need for clear and shared definitions to enable the area to “mature” into a discipline.

Difficulty in definition may come not only from complexity in the area itself but also from a diversity of visions and dreams within the science communication community. Individuals, groups, and organizations within this community have their own ideals of what they see as the “future” in terms of the relationship between sciences and society, but they do not usually explicitly express these ideals and may not even be consciously aware of them. It goes without saying that such images of an ideal “future” emerge from their own values¹. Differences in values or value orientations within the science communication community have not generally been taken into serious consideration thus far.

Current Efforts to Comprehend the Science Communication Arena

For the past several years, science communication researchers have struggled with the issue of how to understand the nature of activities which fall under the name of science communication and how to develop models and frameworks to analyse them. For example, Van Der Auweraert (2005) used a science communication ‘escalator’ model, identifying four dimensions of science communication—public understanding of science (PUS), public awareness of science (PAS), public engagement with science (PES) and public participation of science (PPS)—each of them with specific characteristics relating to science knowledge and communication. Trench (2008) proposed an analytical framework of science communication models, in which he identified three types of dominant models (deficit, dialogue, and participation) and their associated characteristics. McCallie et al. (2009) developed a framework for discriminating among PUS-PES activities in informal science education, for the purpose of classifying current and proposed activities. Their framework consists of three dimensions: (1) role of the public (audience participation); (2) role of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-related experts (expert participation), and (3) content focus. Brossard and Lewenstein (2010), however, re-examined to what extent prominent theoretical models accorded with real activities in science communication and concluded that traditional theoretical models often overlap in practice (p.32). They therefore suggested that popular theoretical models were less distinguishable when considering real science communication activities.

The nature of models in science communication is discussed at length in Chapter 2; in this chapter I wish to focus on what is needed from such models in terms of developing a unified framework for science communication.

Reflections: Fundamental Nature of Science Communication

Recent explorations of science communication are mainly based upon analysis of the status quo of science communication activities and events (what is), and have not yet provided a satisfying concept of a grand-picture of science communication (what should or might be) in terms of overall goals. So it is a good time for us to do a “health check” (Jenkins, 2000) of the whole arena of science communication. In this chapter, I will try not to stick to the current state, but to consider an ideal state: what the ideal goals of science communication could be. This approach resembles an endeavour of engineering, in the sense of Sparkes’ explanation (1993, p.293), “whereas science is concerned with discovering and theoretizing about ‘what is,’ engineering is concerned with creating and theoretizing about ‘what might be.’ ”

The current activities of science communication are commonly developed independently and follow their organizers’ (scientists, science communicators, etc.) own beliefs, interests and concerns. They are rarely, if ever, developed in a systematically planned manner. Therefore, simple collection and evaluation of the resultant activities and events at a certain point in time may fail to deliver a grand-picture of what science communication should or could be. In order to obtain, or to appropriately design such an ideal picture, we must develop alternative analytical approaches. This requires us to look at the whole field but, for the past 20 years, the field of science communication has been differentiated into sub-fields labeled PUS, PAS, PES, PPS, and so on. Because efforts have concentrated on distinguishing one from another, much analysis has focused on their differences. If we are to identify universal grand goals for science communication, then identifying commonality across these differentiated sub-fields becomes important. What is common and what remains unchanged from before the historical differentiation happened? To answer this question, two possible approaches come to mind: (1) exploring the situation before such differentiation emerged (historical reflection); and (2) exploring fundamentally shared presuppositions among the sub-fields. For the former approach, we need to identify a kind of “prototype” or benchmark of science communication activity. For the latter, we may face difficulty: within the sub-fields, their own unique characteristics have, to date, been given greater emphasis, and common characteristics may not be apt to be explicitly and directly expressed.

Historical reflection guides us back to the days of the establishment of the Royal Institution in 1799 and the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in 1831. Looking to the original missions or objectives of such institutions may give us a hint of possible overall goals. In the official website of history of the Royal Institution (n.d.), we read that “The Royal Institution was founded in March 1799 with the aim of introducing new technologies and teaching science to the general public.” Jones (1871) quoted the founder Count Rumford’s proposal for founding the Royal Institution, and it reads:

The two great objects of the Institution being the speedy and general diffusion of the knowledge of all new and useful improvements, in whatever quarter of the world they may originate; and teaching the application of scientific discoveries to the improvement of arts and manufacturers in this country, and to the increase of domestic comfort and convenience.

(Jones 1871, p.121)

In the official website of the current British Science Association (n.d.) we read that the purpose of the organization was as follows:

The original purpose of the organization, expressed through its annual meetings held in different towns and cities throughout the UK was: “to give a stronger impulse and a more systematic direction to scientific inquiry; to promote the intercourse of those who cultivate Science in different parts of the British Empire with one another and with foreign philosophers; to obtain more general attention for the objects of Science and the removal of any disadvantages of a public kind that may impede its progress.

These two examples from earlier days in science history indicate that, from the very beginning, these institutions had the clear intention to diffuse scientific knowledge outside their own circle. This can be viewed as “the science community’s intention to intervene in the relationship between science and the public.” Emphasizing the point that certain kinds of intervention were intended from the very beginning, these aims could possibly serve as a “prototype” goal of the contemporary science communication movement.

In the second approach—exploring shared presuppositions across present sub-fields of science communication—a promising unifying concept seems to be “the relationship between sciences and society.” As is well known, the title of the report on the relationship between the public and science and technology, published by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), was “Science and Society,” and it has been said that this report was the actual starting point for shifting the current science communication movement beyond “public understanding of science” to “public engagement with science.” The report formulated a strong intention to intervene in the relationship between science and society, but in different terms from those implied by The Royal Institution and The BAAS. From 2000 onward, the phrase “science and society” has been used as an umbrella term of inclusiveness for various areas of science communication. For example, the consultation document of the UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008) was entitled “A vision for science and society.” In its back cover, they explained “science and society” as follows:

We include engagement with society in its broadest sense, from science centres and festivals, through information provision by consultation, active dialogue and other media, to enabling citizen empowerment and decision-making. We include the use of science by society and the provision of scientific advice to policy makers for the benefit of society. We include the range of science skills opportunities, through the education system and beyond, and the importance of diversity in enabling a workforce truly representative of the society which it serves.

The relationship between science and society is, here again, the target of intervention by the authors or by the government.

One of the common features of science communication in its broadest sense could thus be summarized, using either approach, as “the intention to intervene in the relationship between sciences and society (or scientists and the public).” It is no problem to assert that this intention is shared by activities and events under any of the sub-fields. The idea of intervention between science and society would seem, therefore, a useful starting point from which to examine the science communication field.

The critical step, however, is to determine the intent behind the intervention. If we allow for different value orientations within the science communication community, we can then explore ways of conceptualizing science communication, emphasizing these differences in value orientations. This approach is different from current perceptions that are simply based upon analyses of scien...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface: The Changing Face of Science Communication
• Using This Book
• Acknowledgments
• PART I Models of Science Communication-Theory into Practice
• PART II Challenges in Communicating Science
• PART III Major Themes in Science Communication
• PART IV Informal Learning
• PART V Communication of Contemporary Issues in Science and Society
• PART VI Further Exploration
• Further Exploration
• About the Authors
• Index