Science Communication
Science Communicators:
A study of the emerging profession of science communications in Australia
MA Communication by Coursework
School of Applied Communication
RMIT University, Melbourne
Minor project
Submitted Semester One, 2004
By Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Science Communicators:
A study of the emerging profession of science communications in Australia
Abstract
This study gives an important insight into the nascent profession of science communications by asking: what makes a professional ‘science communicator’?
This study addresses a range of issues around professional science communicators, including a professional science communicators’ educational background and why they must understand both beasts of science and communication.
It looks at whether science communicators’ need to be passionate about science, and some of the things professional science communicators need to understand about the culture of scientists and science to be effective.
It also touches on whether the skills and techniques of science communication are fundamentally the same as any other area of communication, while exploring if they need to be 100 percent accurate in their communication.
This study also investigates how science communicators are breaking down science and the techniques they are using to engage their intended audiences. The use of jargon, complexity and detail in their communication is also examined.
The researcher calls on the science communication profession to conduct more research into practical, strategic, science communication. Research investigating the range of science communication being conducted, the techniques being used and properly evaluated, practical, case studies. The researcher also calls on the need for research into what constitutes ethical science communication.
This study uses five in-depth interviews and an Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) to answer these questions.
Page 2 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Table of Contents
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 4: Interview Transcripts ..............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4a: Nick Besley .......................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4b: David Trotter.....................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4c: Niall Byrne ........................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4d: Melissa Trudinger .............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4e: Rebecca Scott ....................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 3 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 6: All science can be communicated to the general public.....................50
Statement 8: Jargon has no place in science communication. .................................52
Statement 14: We need more charismatic ambassadors of science in public life....58
Statement 14: The stereotype of scientists being ‘mad professors’ no longer exists.
Statement 15: Would you like to add any comments on the issues raised?.............59
Page 4 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Acknowledgements
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
This study has been a truly rewarding experience for me. It signifies another step forward in my career and the culmination of my science and public relations backgrounds.
I have only been able to make this possible because of the wonderful people who have supported me along the way.
Therefore a special thanks goes to:
•
My family, for their continuing encouragement and support. Particularly my mother and father for always encouraging me to challenge myself. Also, my brothers and sisters who are always bring me down-to-earth and providing me with much sought after distractions!
•
Nick Besley, for being both a mentor and friend over the past few years as I moved into science communication. He has assisted me in gaining several employment contracts, provided guidance while I worked at RMIT and assisted me with this project.
•
Niall Byrne, for employing me to assist him with his science public relations business over the past eight months, providing me with a unique perspective into the industry and assisting me with this project.
•
Alan Turner, who I first met as I studied Medical Laboratory Science. Thank you for assisting me with my placement in Ireland and for the unique opportunity to share my public relations skills with my old professional body, the Australian Institute of Medical Scientists.
•
Jonathan Smith, for assisting me with the development of this project, and all his supervision and input.
•
And last but certainly not least, all the science communicators who went above and beyond my expectations with the information they provided me from the interviews and questionnaire responses.
Page 5 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Introduction
This study aims to investigate the question: what makes a professional ‘science communicator’?
‘Science communicator’ has become a popular term for a person who specialises in communicating science.
Science communication (SciCom) has been defined as "the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science (the AEIOU vowel analogy): Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest,
Opinion-forming, and Understanding" (Burns et al. 2003, p. 183).
In February 1994, the Australian Science Communicators (ASC) was formed in response to a demand by professionals working around Australia for an organisation that would help them to network and share ideas about science communication
(Metcalfe & Gascoigne 2004, p. 1).
Over the past ten years the field of science communication and the people who identify themselves as science communicators, has developed quite rapidly. In
Australia, science communication is now a recognised profession, probably more so than in any other developed country (Metcalfe & Gascoigne 2004, p. 1).
The ASC provides members with state branch meetings, an e-list, science communication conferences and other professional development opportunities. This allows science communicators to continually improve their science communication skills and knowledge, while building better networks with other people in the profession.
In this study ‘professional’ is considered to be a science communicator who strives to improve and update their skill set, so they can perform science communication at the highest level. A profession is a body of professionals who can support each other by striving to advance the standards of the profession. This means sharing knowledge, codifying standards of behaviour and providing resources through whatever means, to
Page 6 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J constantly improve and update their skills (Wikipedia 2004, p. 1; Social Care
Association 2004, p. 1).
Professional science communicators differ on the type of science they interact with, the range of audiences they engage and the techniques they rely on to communicate science. Despite all these differences, they identify themselves as a distinct professional group (Metcalfe & Gascoigne 2004, p. 1). But trying to categorise this group can prove difficult, especially because there has been very little research conducted into them.
This is because the term science communicator encompasses a range of professions such as scientists, public relations practitioners, journalists, science centre workers, marketeers and education officers. Likewise, the type of science they communicate can be specialized or diversified, across any scientific fields such as physics, forestry, robotics, biology, astronomy, pathology or geography.
According to Chris Bryant, founder of the National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science: “Scientific communication is the processes by which the scientific culture and its knowledge become incorporated into the common culture” (Bryant 2004, p. 1).
As a result of this underlying philosophy, science communicators are usually communicating to non-scientific audiences.
Throughout this study the term ‘intended audience’ will be used to refer to whichever audience has been identified as being important for the science communication. These intended audiences can range from the public, media, politicians, students, academics, other scientists, to a multitude of other intended audiences.
Another one of the commonalities science communicators have is their desire to make science more meaningful to their intended audience, whether this is through translating complex concepts or by creating dialogue (Metcalfe & Gascoigne 2004, p.
3). As a result, science communicators can fill an important role in assisting scientists and scientific organisations to communicate their science to their intended audiences.
Page 7 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Science communicators can assist when a scientist – be it because of a lack of skill, time or perceived need – choses to focus on the science rather than the communication of the science. A science communicator can take on the communication or assist scientists to become more effective at communicating. This enables the science to transgress out of the laboratory and research papers, and into a wider forum for debate, discussion or acknowledgement.
Scientific institutions also have a need for science communication and consequently science communicators. According to Julian Cribb, author of A Guide to Effective
Science Communication : “In the 21 st
century, scientific institutions will be judged not only on what they’ve discovered, but also on how effectively they shared it and how valuable to humanity it proved to be” (Cribb 2001, p. 12). Scientific institutions are beginning to better understand how communicating its science and improving its communications with key audiences can create partnerships, improve reputation and attract funding (Willems 2003, p. 470; MORI 2001, p. 31).
But while the need for the role of science communicators is clear, there is very little information available on them. The field of science communications is still developing and up until recently there has been very little research into who ‘science communicators’ are or how they operate, as a group or individually.
According to the Centre for Public Understanding of Science website: “The best science communicators impart knowledge gently and with skill, so that their audience has a pleasing and satisfying experience and is motivated to repeat it” (Bryant 2004, p. 1). However there is no solid research into how science communicators should go about doing this. There is very little research available on the range of techniques they are using use to breakdown and communicate science, let alone how effective these techniques are.
Other communication studies are useful, but they don’t fully comprehend the environment science communicators are operating in. An environment with specialist technical knowledge, jargon, and a unique culture surrounding the way scientists and the scientific industry operates.
Page 8 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
This study aims to provide an insight into the ‘science communicator’ by finding out what makes a professional ‘science communicator’.
This study will address professional science communicators’ educational background and if they need to “understand both beasts” of science and communication (Reed
2002, p. 46). It will also focus on whether science communicators need to be passionate about science and if they must be 100 percent accurate in their communication. It will investigate some of the things science communicators need to understand about scientists and the culture of science.
Finally, it will touch on some of the skills and techniques science communicators are using to using to break down science and engage their intended audience. It will also discuss how science communications modulate the jargon, complexity and detail in their science communication.
The answers to these issues are important in providing an insight into the emerging profession of science communications.
This study uses two main methods: in-depth interviews and an Adapted Likert Tool
(ALT) to explore these themes.
Page 9 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Literature Review
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The embryonic stage of the science communication profession means there has been very little quality research into science communication and science communicators, but this is changing quite rapidly.
For instance, Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne (2004) conducted a study of 145 science communicators in May this year. It was sent out over the ASC-list only several days after the Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) that makes up part of this study, was sent out. The responses provided a snapshot on: who are science communicators, what they do, what influences them, and how they see their career path (Metcalfe &
Gascoigne 2004, p. 1). The study attempts to provide some definition of science communicators and the profession, however because it has only recently been conducted, real findings from the study have yet to be fully extrapolated from the statistics.
Until a few years ago science communication programs did not exist and science communicators moved into the field from a science, communication or other background. Metcalfe and Gascoigne’s study (2004) provided some insight into the backgrounds of their sample.
The vast majority of respondents had some type of science degree (79 percent), but a significant proportion also had formal training in science communication (32 percent).
When asked if science communicators should hold a science degree, the majority agreed (54 percent), but a significant proportion disagreed with this (42 percent).
What this study did not do, is ask if science communicators should have a higher education in communications and which – science or communications education - was considered more important. This study will address this. It won’t assume that all science communicators come from a science or science communication education background, gaining a better insight into the importance of communication education.
Aside from Metcalfe and Gascoigne’s study, there are very few studies that provide direct information on science communicators.
Page 10 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
There is also very little material or studies that professional science communicators can draw upon to improve and update their skills and techniques. This is because most literature that is useful to professional science communicators is heavily entrenched in other perspectives such as education, engineering, public relations, journalism, and other science and humanity fields. This makes it very difficult for professional science communicators to find valuable information or advice, without reading very widely.
Also most literature and research relevant to science communicators, provides the information from a science, scientist or third person (the communicator undefined) perspective. This material is useful, but needs to be adequately interpreted for use by professional science communicators.
However there are some key texts, guidelines and articles that are beginning to amount to a useful body of knowledge for professional science communicators to draw from.
In 2000, The Wellcome trust (2000) conducted comprehensive research of over 1600 scientists, regarding the role of scientists in public debate. The study found scientists felt they had too little time or skills, to communicate with the non-specialist public. It found most scientists believed they should receive help from both funders of scientific research and professional communicators, to convey research findings and their implications to the non-specialist public (MORI 2001, p. 4).
This research is important for professional science communicators because it highlights that scientists recognise the need for science communicators. It also provides a valuable insight into the culture of scientists.
Stocklmayer’s Science Communication in Theory and Practice (2001) provides a very theoretical view of science communication. While it says it covers the “whole area”, it is really quite limiting in the range of science communication covered. It discusses very theoretically, science communication and science in the media, while providing case studies on interactive science centres and the science circus.
Page 11 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
However it fails to offer any practical techniques for professional science communicators or take into account the wider range of strategic communications being performed. The back cover says it “informs practitioners about the effectiveness of their programs”, however the book doesn’t properly evaluate the case studies provided (Stocklmayer et al. 2001, p. 289). It also says very little about setting objectives and evaluating the success of science communication programs - key requirements for professional science communicators wanting to improve their science communication skills and techniques.
In contrast, Cribb’s A Guide to Effective Science Communication (2002) is a practical, how-to-do-it guide for science communication. It is intended to assist scientific institutions become more effective knowledge sharers and partners. This guide provides strategic communication ideas from an organisation’s perspective and is based on public relations theories.
It provides professional science communicators with a practical guide for communicating with the key audiences of scientific institutions. Cribb does not cover other less formal communications, such as interactive science and entertainment. The guide does outline the importance of developing a clear communication plan and does mentions the need to measure success. However, it could have provided more useful information for science communicators to evaluate their communication programs
(Cribb 2002 p. 16).
The Research Council UK (2002) also published a very practical guide to creating dialogue with the public. The guidelines offer definitions of “engagement”,
“dialogue” and “consultation”; and seeks to clarify the different roles that these play in an overall communications strategy (Research Council UK 2002, p. 2). They call for “two way dialogue, where those seeking to communicate the wonders of their science, also listen to the concerns of the pubic” (Research Council UK 2002,
Foreword). The guide highlights the need for more strategic communication and discussed the need for science communicators to receive feedback on their communication.
Page 12 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The guidelines also provide a very basic, but comprehensive guide to increasing the opportunities for dialogue, and the exchange of ideas and views. It outlines the importance of setting objectives and evaluating the effectiveness of dialogue. It provides professional science communicators with useful information and some practical suggestions for improving their performance, when moving towards a dialogue style of communication. (Research Council UK 2002)
The literature review also uncovered an ASC constitution that governs the way the
ASC operates (Australian Science Communicators website 2004), however it did not find any code of ethics for science communicators to draw on. The adoption of a code is often significant for the professionalisation of a professional group. It is one of the external hallmarks testifying to the claim that the group recognises an obligation to society that transcends mere economic self-interest (Luegenbiehl 1983, p. 138). This raises the possibility of a gap in the literature. A code of ethics could provide a framework for professional science communicators to use and set a standard for the profession.
Overall, the literature really lacks research into the techniques science communicators are using to breakdown science and translate it. The literature widely discusses how
“jargon can be used both appropriately and inappropriately”, (Lee 2002, p. 92) and touches on complexity in communication. However it does not say how science communicators are or should be using it. This study will look at what science communicators think about jargon, complexity and detail in their science communication.
This study also aims to fill in other gaps in the literature about science communicators. It aims to do this by providing an insight and discussion of the perceptions held by current professional science communicators.
It will contribute to the information already available on a science communicators’ education by discussing some of the considerations of approaching science communication from a purely science or communication stance.
Page 13 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
This study will also address science communicators need for passion and accuracy in science communication. It will further investigate the skills and techniques required by professional science communicators when they break down and communicate science to their intended audience.
Finally, it will provide information on all these issues and more, from the perspective of a science communicator – not a scientist, organisation, or user undefined perspective, like the rest of the literature.
Research Question
What makes a professional ‘science communicator’?
Page 14 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Methodology
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
In order to answer the research question five in-depth interviews were conducted and an Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) was distributed. An ethics declaration was completed and approved by the RMIT Research Ethics Committee.
Interviews
In-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted with five science communicators.
Interviewees were deliberately selected to represent a range of science communicator roles including marketing, public relations, journalism and education. Selection was also based on their ability to represent a range of science sectors including not-forprofit, consultancy, corporate and government. Three interviewees had a formal science education and two came from a communications background. This selection reflected the range of roles held by science communicators, and allowed for an array of views and techniques to be discussed.
Each science communicator interviewed worked in a management role and was involved in converting scientific material into a form suitable for their intended audience/s. The interviewees were e-mailed a copy of the interview questions
(Appendix 1) prior to the interview and were asked to complete questions one to four
before the interview.
Interviews were conducted in the interviewees’ work environments and lasted from
forty minutes to just over an hour. A plain language statement (Appendix 2) was
provided to each interviewee and their consent was obtained so they could be identified in this study. The consent forms have not been included in this write up, however they are available upon request.
The interview had two main parts. The first section looked at the interviewee’s education and work experience background. The answers provide an insight into the path they took to become professional science communicators and why they were attracted to the profession. The second section looked at the specialised skills and techniques they use to interpret the science they work with.
Page 15 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Open-ended questions were used as a template for the interviews because they allowed respondents freedom in their answers and the opportunity to provide in-depth discussion (Wimmer & Dominick 1994, p. 110). Further open and closed questions were asked as required. Each interview was tape recorded and transcribed to provide a wealth of qualitative data.
Three interviews were conducted prior to the Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) being sent out and two afterwards. This was done so the information gained from the first three interviews could be used to shape the Likert style statements, and the final two interviews could be conducted in light of the feedback from the ALT.
Adapted Likert Tool (ALT)
The Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) comprised a Likert style scale and an optional Open
Comment Component (OCC).
The Likert style scale consisted of a number of statements where respondents chose an answer of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree (Wimmer &
Dominick 1994, p. 54). The Likert style approach was chosen because it is very simple to use and has the ability to gauge reactions. It also provides greater uniformity of responses and results that could be easily quantified. (Wimmer & Dominick 1994, p. 111)
The numbers of statements were deliberately kept to a minimum to limit the time and effort required by respondents (Wimmer & Dominick 1994, p. 122). The Likert style statements were constructed around very broad issues such as education, jargon, complexity and techniques. This is because the people subscribing to the ASC database held a range of science communication roles.
While the Likert approach has many benefits, the researcher regarded traditional use of the Likert scale to be too limiting for this study and as a result an Open Comment
Component (OCC) was added. The OCC gave the respondents the opportunity to provide any comments they may have on science communications and the issues raised by the statements.
Page 16 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The OCC was included because the Likert scale limits responses to five categories.
The Likert scale was considered too rigid to capture any extra comments a respondent may have on the issues raised by the statements, or allow respondents to highlight a scale that may be ‘trapping’ them into an answer that isn’t right. The OCC was also considered necessary because the literature review demonstrated there was very little research and discussion on the role of science communicators. As a result, it was anticipated that respondents might like to provide comments on the issues raised.
The ALT was kept as simple as possible. A brief introduction was provided, followed by 14 Likert style statements and the OCC. The Likert style scale allowed for quantitative results and the OCC allowed for qualitative comments on the issues. The
OCC also allowed more data to be captured, allowing the results to the Likert style statements to be more usefully interpreted.
E-mail was chosen to deliver the ALT because it provided an easier and more immediate means of response (Flaherty et al. 1998, p. 262). Another benefit was that the distribution mechanism was cost effective and already in place through the
Australian Science Communicators (ASC) e-mail distribution list.
The ASC consists of 465 journalists, editors, scientists, engineers, educators and communicators who are committed to the communication of science and technology
(Metcalfe & Gascoigne 2004, p. 1). The ASC has two electronic mailing lists that members and non-members can sign up for. The ASC-media is used to distribute press releases and information concerning self-promotion. The ASC-list is used for the discussion of science communication issues and the promotion of science related events (Australian Science Communicators website 2004).
Once compiled, the ALT was piloted with several science communicators and then emailed to the 668 (D Osborne 2004, pers. Comm., 7 May) science communicators
who subscribe to the ASC-list. A copy of the plain language statement (Appendix 2)
was also provided, informing the respondents all responses would be kept confidential.
Page 17 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Results
Interviews
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 3 shows the name, position and organisation of the five science
communicators interviewed. It also shows the main types of science communication they perform and the audiences they engage.
Adapted Likert Tool (ALT)
The ASC-list distributed the ALT to 668 science communicators. 101 surveys were
returned, resulting in a fair response rate of 15.12 percent. Table 1 shows the raw
quantitative data received from the ALT. The result that received the most responses for each statement has been bolded.
In Table 2, the result that received the most number of responses for each statement
has also been bolded. However in this table the data for agree and strongly agree have been added together, so too have the disagree and strongly disagree values. These new figures have been expressed as a percentage of the total, resulting in an agree, neutral and disagree percentage for each statement.
The compression of results was done for ease of presentation and interpretation. It was considered reasonable to compress similar categories and after careful analysis of the two sets of data, did not appear to contribute to any distortion of the findings.
The Open Comment Component (OCC) of the ALT meant that as well as choosing one of the five responses, some respondents provided extra comments. This resulted in seventeen pages of extra comments (Appendix 4) and provided a unique insight into the rational behind their answers.
Some respondents wrote broad comments on science communication, while others addressed their comments to the issues raised by individual statements. The comments provided added depth and context to the issues addressed in the ALT, and have contributed significantly to the ideas discussed in the Findings section.
Page 18 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Table 1 Raw data of Adapted Likert Tool (ALT)
ALT Statement
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
S. A. A. N. D. S. D.
1. A professional science communicator should have a higher education in science.
2. A professional science communicator should have a higher education in communication.
27
15
3. To a science communicator, a higher education in communication is more important than a higher education in science.
4. A key ingredient of a successful science communicator is being passionate about science.
48
44 15 10 5
45 24 15 2
10
38 5 10 0
56 5. The fundamental skills and techniques of science communication are the same as any other area of communication.
12
6. All science can be communicated to the general public.
7. Successful science communication captures the essence of the science without any of its complexity or jargon.
31
19
8. Jargon has no place in science communication.
9. To communicate science to people without a background in science, you must demonstrate how the science relates to everyday life or they won’t understand it.
6
10. As an experienced science communicator, the techniques I use to communicate science are very different to most scientists.
11. Telling a science story to a non-scientific audience is more important than being 100% accurate to the science.
12. A person’s experience of science in school is directly related to how receptive they are to science communication later in life.
12
11
13. We need more charismatic ambassadors of science in public life.
14. The stereotype of scientists being ‘mad professors’ no longer exists.
15. Would you like to add any comments on the issues raised?
51
0
45 10 13 2
39 14 29 0
32 22 40 1
1
50 29 10 0
20
38 24 27 1
36 7 5 2
11 13 62 15
Legend:
A. S. strongly
Page 19 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Table 2 Percentages of merged Adapted Likert Tool (ALT) responses
ALT Statement A/
S.A. in %
N in %.
D/
S. D. in %
1. A professional science communicator should have a higher education in science. 70.30 14.85 14.85
2. A professional science communicator should have a higher education in communication.
59.41 23.76 16.83
3. To a science communicator, a higher education in communication is more important than a higher education in science.
23.76 24.75
4. A key ingredient of a successful science communicator is being passionate about science.
85.15
67.33
51.49
4.95 9.90
6.93 25.74 5. The fundamental skills and techniques of science communication are the same as any other area of communication.
6. All science can be communicated to the general public. 75.25
57.43
9.90 14.85
13.86 28.71 7. Successful science communication captures the essence of the science without any of its complexity or jargon.
8. Jargon has no place in science communication. 37.62
9. To communicate science to people without a background in science, you must demonstrate how the science relates to everyday life or they won’t understand it.
46.53
21.78 40.59
18.81 34.65
10. As an experienced science communicator, the techniques I use to communicate science are very different to most scientists.
61.39
11. Telling a science story to a non-scientific audience is more important than being 100% accurate to the science.
28.71 9.90
26.73 18.81 54.46
48.51 23.76 27.72 12. A person’s experience of science in school is directly related to how receptive they are to science communication later in life.
13. We need more charismatic ambassadors of science in public life.
14. The stereotype of scientists being ‘mad professors’ no longer exists.
86.14
10.89
6.93 6.93
12.87 76.24
Legend:
A.
neutral
S. strongly
Page 20 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Findings
The findings from the ALT and the interviews have been grouped into broad categories. This has been done to assist in the discussion and interpretation of the findings.
Education
The results of ALT-1 and ALT-2 indicated that a significant proportion of the sampled ASC members, agreed that science communicators should have a higher education in both science (70.30 percent) and communication (59.41 percent).
A third statement was deliberately included in the questionnaire to try and further separate out which one science communicators thought was more important to have.
ALT-3 showed that only 23.76 percent of the respondents thought a higher education in communications was more important than science. The 51.49 percent that disagreed is very close to the 54 percent in Metcalfe and Gascoigne’s study, who agreed science communicators should hold a science degree (Metcalfe & Gascoigne
2004, p. 2).
The OCC also indicated there are various definitions on what constitutes adequate education. Science programs, like communications programs, are many and varied.
One interviewee pointed out that knowledge of science is not always useful. This is because science communicators may have a “knowledge of geology and be trying to understand the nature of DNA”. This highlights the difficulty in saying all science communicators should have a degree in science because which one of the hundreds of specialist degrees is right?
However, the OCC also indicated it was not the knowledge per se a science communicator received from science degrees that was important, it was the wider ability to deal with complex material. Science programs were also considered to be important because it allowed for science communicators to understand basic science, gain credibility amongst scientists and have an understanding of the culture of scientists and the science industry.
Page 21 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The OCC and a few interviewees, also said it was important to not just understand basic theoretical science, but developments in science. This meant keeping up to date with what’s going on in research and industry; via newspapers, magazines and other science networks. This wider knowledge meant science communicators could be more accurate in their science communication and be on top of what is considered newsworthy.
Another counterargument to having science knowledge arose from the interviews around ‘assumed knowledge’. This occurred when science communicators with a science background assume that the audience understands their knowledge. This led to inappropriate use of jargon and concepts that were not properly defined at a level appropriate for the intended audience.
Several interviewees from a non-science background argued that their lack of science knowledge meant they didn’t get caught up in assumed knowledge. This reduced the complexity and jargon in their communication.
However the golden rule for any science communicator - with or without a science background –was: “you must always remember what your audience doesn’t know”.
This meant understanding what your audience needs to know in order to comprehend the science and therefore providing appropriate science communication.
The importance of communication programs was also discussed in the interviews and the OCC. However generally, the science communicators were unable to define which communications program were most suited to science communication because of the diversity of science communication being employed. The interviewees listed a whole range of communication programs that matched this diversity of science communication being employed.
One OCC respondent also stated: “It helps to have communication training, however, whether it needs to be higher eduction or on the job training, or modules at TAFE, I don't know.” This comment supported a general theme that science communicators were better versed in understanding what science programs, as opposed to communications programs, provided.
Page 22 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
However the OCC did highlight communication programs assisted science communicators to understand and engage their intended audience. This engaging the intended audience was highlighted as another key to successful science communication. It resulted from understanding the communication needs of the audience and consequently knowing how to engage them with the science communication. One interviewee said that with their communication education they received a tool kit of skills that were useful in applying strategic communication to a range of situations.
In contrast, some OCC respondents felt quite strongly that a natural tendency to communicate was enough and a science communicator can learn/practice how to communicate on the job. This attitude raised concerns about a lack of sophisticated, strategic science communications being performed. Without proper evaluation into how effective it is.
Others OCC respondents thought a science or communications background was not necessarily an advantage over the other – it was the training received specifically in science communication that made the difference.
One interviewee sums up their thoughts on this issue. A good science communicator has to “be professional at one and shown at least amateur skill in the other. The two coming together help to make them a good science communicator.”
Passion for science
Passion for science was raised several times in the interviews and as a result was addressed in ALT-4. 85.15 percent of respondents thought a passion for science were key ingredients for professional science communicators. This was because it was
‘hard to ignore someone who is talking on a subject they are passionate about. The energy is catchy.” Another respondent stated, “More so passionate about what the science can achieve (outcome) not science per se”.
This passion was apparent in some respondents being draw to study science initially.
However, several science communicators without a demonstrated passion for science education (i.e. had no education in science and no desire to get one) described their
Page 23 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J attraction to science communication being because of an attraction to dealing with complex material. Their attraction to science communication resulted from the challenge they met each time they had to break down science (a foreign subject to them), into a form they could share with people from their own level of understanding.
This attraction to complex material could also be a key reason why the science communicators with a demonstrated passionate for science, were draw to study and work with science in the first place.
Culture of scientists and science
According to several interviewees, professional science communicators need to understand the culture of science and scientists. This was described as understanding the life of a scientist, how they network, why they attend conferences and how collaborations begin. This also meant understanding the importance of research being peer reviewed, the reputation scientists have with their peers and the way research papers were structured.
One interviewee stated: “You have to have an understanding of the culture of science and scientists, so you can work with it and where you have to – work around it. If you don’t, it gets very frustrating because you don’t understand what’s driving [them]. A scientist is not always being driven by money and commercialisation - there is often a whole other set of academic and intellectual expectations they value.”
Furthermore, it was mentioned scientists focus on methods, detail and accuracy.
While this is what makes them good scientists, it was highlighted as a key reason preventing scientists from being able to communicate their work in a non-technical form, to a wider audience. This is because when immersed in such technical scientific knowledge, it was hard for them to stand back and draw broader ideas about the science they work with.
As a result of this, the interviewees also highlighted coming across ‘assumed knowledge’ when working with scientists. They said scientists often assume everyone understands the language and knowledge they use with their peers. Therefore, they
Page 24 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J can find it difficult to use simpler language and examples. However the interviewees were quick to point out that although scientists were not taught to communicate their work at a simpler level, they were usually quick learners when basic communication techniques were pointed out to them.
There was also the culture of science and scientists that science communicators contribute to in their science communication. ALT-14 asked the respondents if they thought the stereotype of scientists being ‘mad professors’ no longer exists. It found
76.24 percent of science communicators disagreed with the statement.
Some OCC respondents didn’t feel there was anything wrong with the stereotype and noted how some science communicators’ play up to it. Others tried to do what they could to alter it. One OCC respondent stated: “I feel there is a strong stereotype in the public mind and it should be addressed at every occasion of science communication... i.e. not encouraged!”
Other OCC responses stated the classical mad scientist stereotype has shifted to include 'tightly focussed out-of-touch-with reality scientist', ‘the nerd scientist’ and the ‘eccentric scientist’. These stereotypes are something professional science communicators need to understand and decide if they will encourage in their science communication. It is also something that may need to be addressed as a profession.
This possible need for fresher role models was also addressed in ALT-13. 86.14 percent of science communicators agreed there needed to be more charismatic ambassadors of science in public life. One OCC stated: “In both senses: more ambassadors and ambassadors that have more charisma.” This demonstrates the notion of integrating the culture of scientists more closely with popular culture through ambassadors of science. More research is required into these stereotypes and the public perceptions of science and scientists.
Finally, the interviewees also mentioned the need to understand the way the science industry operates including understanding scientific organisations, funding, research and the commercialisation process.
Page 25 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Skills and techniques of science communication
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
ALT-5 found 67.33 percent of respondents thought the fundamental skills and techniques of science communication were the same as any other area of communication. However, they did highlight the way communications skills and techniques needed to accommodate some challenges presented by science and scientists.
One interviewee stated there were skills and techniques specifically required by science communicators, because they work with people from highly technical and advanced academic backgrounds. Another interviewee stated professional science communicators needed: “an exceptional ability to understand the topic because [they] are often dealing with complex ideas.” Therefore science communicators needed to develop skills and techniques that allowed them to pull simple ideas out of complex presentations.
There was also the difference in the skills and techniques used to translate technical science into a simpler style. A process that required more attention to detail and the ability to translate complex science without losing the true meaning.
ALT-10 found, 61.39 percent of respondents thought the techniques they use as an experienced science communicator were very different to most scientists.
One OCC reported: “explaining jargon and putting their science into broad context are not things scientists always pay attention to. However increasingly, scientists understand how important this is.” This need for science communicators to see the
‘bigger picture’ of the science and how it relates on a society level, is a key reason why it was important for science communicators to remain informed of developments in science and what’s considered newsworthy.
Another OCC respondent said: “I think many scientists are very good at explaining their science - that is, they are good talent. However the production side of things is in the domain of the communicator.” This demonstrated the effort and specialisation required to really understand different audiences and know how to engage them,
Page 26 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J appeared to be best handled by science communicators. Science communicators whose job it is to be sophisticated at communicating science.
Interpreting science
The science communicators who were interviewed were asked what resources they rely on to assist then to understand complex science. The two most common responses received were speaking to people (the scientists involved and other networks) and using the Internet (in particular Google). Others said that using their background in science, and keeping on top of media articles and other developments in science, was also important.
Interviewees were also asked: “as a science communicator you often find yourself immersed in reading complicated scientific material. What steps do you take to break it down so you can understand it?”
Here they all said they tried to avoid being confused by the complexity of scientific articles and other scientifically dense material. If the interviewees read articles, they would only ever read the abstracts. Most of the interviewees were more likely to speak directly to the scientists and get them to try to translate the material first. One interviewee said if they looked at an article it was so they could frame half a dozen questions, go back to the relevant person and say this is what I need to know.
The interviewees also relied on the Internet to find information that already conveyed the material in a simpler form. They also relied on grant applications if they could be found because scientists had usually written about the science in a simpler style.
Another interview question asked: “part of science communication is liaising with scientists. How easily do you absorb the scientific information from them and what techniques do you use to make it easier?”
The interviewees said they kept asking questions until they got an answer they could use. Once again using one-on-one communication. The science communicators’ felt knowing how to ask the right questions to draw the information out of the scientists was a key technique. They felt if they keep the scientists talking and guided the
Page 27 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J conversation with some key questions, they could usually always extract the information from the scientist directly.
Throughout such conversations the science communicators would be thinking about angles and ways to use the information. They would continue to ask questions until they felt they had enough information to structure a concept or story in their mind.
Then they would repeat it back to the scientist in their own words, to see if what they were saying was correct. To assist the process they would draw on analogies or other examples, to see if they understood the material correctly.
Once the science communicator thought they understood the material and had it verbally confirmed, they would return to their office. There they would draft a document from their notes, before e-mailing the draft to the scientist to see if they understood the science.
This concept of sending a written draft to scientists, seemed to be a common technique in science communication, but is not typical of other communication fields.
The work was not sent to the scientist to check how it was written, but to check the facts and ensure accuracy in the science communication.
This two-way relationship between the science communicator and the scientists was mutually beneficial. It resulted in trust. The science communicator could be sure their work was accurate and the scientist could see they weren’t being misrepresented. This helped to quell the suspicion scientists sometimes had of their work being put forward in the wrong light.
Accuracy in science communication
ALT-11 found 54.46 percent of respondents disagreed that telling a science story to a non-scientific audience, is more important than being 100% accurate to the science.
26.73 percent agreed.
For those who disagreed, the statement raised ethical issues. The OCC brought out concerns about science communicators telling lies and fudging science in order to get attention. This highlighted the importance of truth and credibility in science, and
Page 28 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J consequently science communications. One interviewee also stated: “If your story plays against the credibility of the science then you might get a couple of headlines but you won’t get long term credibility”. This credibility and respect was noted as something scientists work very hard to ensure they have with their peers.
However the OCC also showed the standard scientists set for accuracy can present a challenge for science communicators. The OCC found science communicators felt they often had a more lenient definition of 100% accurate, than the scientists they work with. One OCC respondent stated: “often scientists go to the other extreme, when they accuse science communication people of not being 100% accurate because they've left out a minor caveat, comment or piece of information.”
This difference in the level of accuracy was discussed in the OCC as sometimes being an inevitable result from simplifying the science, so it is suitable for communication.
One respondent stated: “Simplifying the science is fine, being inaccurate is not. Some scientists would see simplification as being inaccurate.”
This demonstrates the fine line science communicators must walk in trying to remain accurate to the science, while employing simplification and generalisation, so it can be communicated to a non-scientific audience.
There was also an OOC that stated: “It is always important to be 100 per cent accurate in any form of communication - but it is not important to have the approval and support of the scientists concerned.” This highlights an ethical consideration in future research because as stated earlier, whose definition of accuracy – a science communicators’ or a scientists’ – is correct? Science communicators who are seen to be communicating inaccurate science may contribute to a lack of trust in science communicators by scientists and the public.
Jargon, complexity and detail
There appeared to be three elements to science that science communicators needed to modulate in their science communication: jargon, complexity and detail.
Page 29 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The use or absence of jargon in science communication was spilt. ALT-8 found 37.62 respondents agreed jargon had no place in science communication, while 40.59 percent disagreed.
For the OCC respondents who believed jargon had no place, it was an issue of the audience’s access to the material. By removing all the jargon, there was no fear of the intended audience tuning out because they didn’t understand the scientific terms.
For the respondents who thought jargon had a place in science communication, the general rule was that if jargon was used, it should be limited and it must be explained.
One reason for using jargon according to an OCC respondent, was that it opened up
“a world of understanding to [the] audience.” It was thought, explained jargon, helped to connect people to the material they were engaging with and increased their understanding of the topic. A couple of other OCC respondents reflected on the way some jargon has been taken up by the general public, such as DNA. They used jargon to start familiarising their intended audience with the terms, so they would be more accepting of jargon in the future.
ALT-7 found 58 percent of respondents agreed successful science communication captures the essence of the science, without any of its complexity or jargon.
The OCC responses appeared to be more inclined to accept complexity in their communication than jargon. They thought complexity was good because it helps dispel the idea that science was quick and easy. They felt it was misleading to give overly simplistic views of science because it could lead to the intended audience developing a naïve, 'positivist' view of science. When this occurred, the intended audience could become disillusioned with science when it couldn’t provide clear-cut answers to a problem and become confused when experts disagreed.
The OCC also raised concern that removing the complexity in science communication could lead to a ‘so what factor’ One OCC stated: “Complexity yes, jargon no. Science is complex, so is life.” Part of science is that it is complex and consequently a challenge. Some OCC respondents suggested that by removing the complexity, they
Page 30 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J would remove the mystery behind the science and thus some of its appeal as science communication.
The interviewees also said they strived to simplify the science in their communications by reducing the detail and breaking it down to its simplest form –
‘capturing the essence’. They all seemed to agree that the less detail the better.
However what they did report, as mentioned previously, was that the amount of detail they considered important was often quite different to scientists. This is because they needed to rely on generalisations and simplifications, when they removed the detail and reduced the complexity.
The OCC also revealed a lot of respondents believed that their intended audiences had a good capacity to understand science. However there were quite contrasting views on how much translation science should go through. For instance, one OCC respondent said: “we are not here to patronise the public by diluting science. We are responsible for communicating science as it stands”.
However, most interviewees and OCC respondents seemed to acknowledge they needed to modulate the jargon, complexity and detail in their science communication to suit the intended audience.
Engaging Intended audiences
ALT-6 found 75.25 percent of respondents believed all science could be communicated to the general public. However, for different forms of science communication, the way it was communicated depended on the intended audience.
The interviewees also agreed science should be communicated to the general public that doesn’t have an understanding of science. They felt if the communication was done right, the audience shouldn’t always have to understand the science behind the communication, in order to engage in it and celebrate it.
The OCC responses were also quick to highlight that even though all science could be communicated, it was more a matter of whether it should be. This meant asking the
Page 31 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J question does the intended audience need to know this or is there another benefit to the communication that makes it worthwhile?
A strong theme arising from both the interviews and the questionnaire, concerned the techniques science communicators were using to engage their intended audiences.
ALT-9 found 46.53 percent of respondents agreed when communicating science to people without a background in science, they must demonstrate how the science relates to everyday life or they won’t understand it. A large proportion, 34.65 percent, disagreed with this.
The OCC showed the respondents related science to everyday life in order to get the audience’s attention. It was also considered a useful tool in making the science tangible to the audience, in order for them to visualise science that would otherwise be quite abstract. Some OCC respondents also stated if the audience couldn’t see how it related to them, they were more unlikely to want to understand the science or remember it. While another stated it was a useful tool in getting the public to
‘support’ the science.
The OCC revealed science communicators generally believed that people without a background in science were able to grasp abstract concepts. However it showed that even after relating the science to everyday life, it did not guarantee the audience would be able to understand the science.
Another main technique raised by the interviewees was storytelling. Story telling put the science into a context and made it easier for the intended audience to digest.
Storytelling was a very useful technique used across a range of science communications and with a range of intended audiences.
One of these intended audiences was the media. According to Cribb, “journalists and the scientists are partners in the process of knowledge generation and sharing. Each can add value to the other’s work” (Cribb 2001, p. 42). Although this study did not focus directly on the media, the interviewees did address some aspects of how they engaged with the media.
Page 32 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
The interviewees’ commented on the need to present quality, targeted material and to build up a relationship with journalists where possible. The interviewees also explained that a science communicator who understands the deadlines, information needs and temperaments of journalists, can translate the science into a form that can be readily used by the journalist. This enhanced the chance of the science getting into the media and the science being accurately communicated.
There was also a stated need to communicate not just with science journalists, but also with other journalists. Here the variation in scientific understanding among journalists was as great as other intended audiences. This meant keeping communications at the most basic level, with as little jargon, complexity and detail as possible, in order to get the message into the mainstream media.
Non-scientific journalists also assisted in getting science into popular culture. One interviewee mentioned the importance of getting stories into the media, not as a
‘science story’, but a ‘story’ where the science angle was not always evident. This avoided the resistance science communicators often found in their audiences towards
‘science’ stories, because they perceived ‘science’ as being too complex for them.
Other techniques included the use of pictures and diagrams where science communications could be made easier. A couple of interviewees also mentioned they used role models when engaging their intended audiences. This was considered particularly important in the field of education and younger intended audiences.
As mentioned previously, the overwhelming majority of respondents believed the stereotype of scientists being a ‘mad professor’ still existed. The role models being used by science communicators were attempting to break some of these ingrained stereotypes and provide more tangible role models people could relate to.
To spite these more dull or abstract stereotypes; science communicators were branching out for more innovative methods of communication. This meant putting a more modern and interesting angle on science communication where possible. This included the use of interactive science displays, entertainment, art and theatre to engage the intended audience (Willems 2003, p. 470). One OCC respondent recalled a
Page 33 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J lecturer who sang his lectures on things like the Krebs cycle to the tunes of Gilbert &
Sullivan. The lyrics were scientifically accurate and during exams everyone would be humming the tunes to get their answers! This is an example of an interesting, nonscientific technique being used to share science in a different way.
Finally, there was also a greater concern resulting from ALT-6. This had to do with the way science communicators engaged with their intended audiences and the effect it had on their receptiveness to science communication.
One OCC respondent stated: “I have a concern that there is a growing distrust of science and scientists. This is perhaps because of the science for hire we sometimes see.” The respondent described the way science was being used as a front for companies, advertising and public scientific debate. This led to audiences no knowing what to believe.
Another OCC also supported this stating: “the public may be coming to mistrust (or ignore) science when the 'answers' are constantly changing, or ignore it as too confusing when the barrage of [scientific] advances are reported with little context.”
This highlights a broader issue science communicators contribute to when they communicate the ‘maybes’ and ‘possibilities’ of research, not findings. This leads to intended audiences getting confused when research seems to contradict itself or ends up being at a more immature stage than originally interpreted. Treise refered to this
“hype and publicity” of science communication and highlighted it “carries with it inherent ethical issues” (Treise 2002, p. 318).
Page 34 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Conclusion
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
This study asked the question what makes a professional ‘science communicator’?
This study has been able to provide a snapshot into the nascent profession of science communications and begin to define more clearly what makes a professional ‘science communicator’.
At the beginning of this study a professional science communicator was defined as someone who seeks to continually improve and update their skills, and a profession was the body of professionals that provided the framework for this to happen. The
ASC through its e-mail lists, branch meetings and conferences, is providing a network for science communicators to become more professional in Australia.
However the profession is still in very early stages of development, as confirmed by the Literature Review. It showed there is very little information about ‘science communicators’ or information on specific science communication skills and techniques. This makes it quite difficult for professional science communicators to gain more sophisticated information on science communication skills and techniques from the literature.
This study has begun to fill in some of the gaps in the literature on science communicators.
This study has confirmed a professional science communicator needs to understand
‘both beasts’ of science and communication. It was able to highlight some of the reasons why science and communication are necessary to the role of science communicators.
This study also highlighted that professional science communicators with a background in science, need to be aware of ‘assumed knowledge’. This meant always understanding what the intended audience doesn’t know in order to more accurately appropriated science communication.
A key ingredient for a successful science communicator was shown to be a passion for science and/or an attraction for dealing with complex material.
Page 35 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
This study also highlighted the need for professional science communicators to understand the culture of science and scientists, so they can better understand the material and people they work with.
This study also found that while the skills and techniques of science communication are similar to other areas, there are some key considerations. These mostly had to do with science and had to do with dealing with complex material, working with scientists and operating within the scientific industry.
It also discussed the need for science communicators to be accurate in their communications. It found there was sometimes a difference in the definition in what is considered ‘accurate’ by scientists and must be accommodated for by the science communicator.
The study found professional science communicators must also be able to translate science into a range of forms that is suitable for the intended audiences. This means they must understand the communication requirements of the intended audience and modulate the level of detail, complexity, and jargon of the science in their communication.
Finally this study discussed a range of techniques science communicators were using to engage their intended audience. This included relating it to everyday life, storytelling and using role models.
Coupling in-depth interviews with an Adapted Likert Tool proved to be a great exploratory tool in elucidating the current perceptions of science communicators.
However, this study was limited by the time, scope and resources afforded by a minor project. This resulted in a very broad study of science communicators and although it highlights many interesting concepts, it could not fully explore them in the detail they deserve.
The other main limitation of this study revolved around the construction of the statements for the Adapted Likert Tool (ALT). On reflection, the construction of the statements could have been improved. The term ‘higher education’ should have been
Page 36 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J properly defined and complexity should have been explored in a separate statement to jargon. However the OCC allowed for these limitations to be highlighted and for the concepts to be better developed in the Findings section.
There was also a limitation in that the Likert style statements did not cover some key concepts on science communications. However despite this, some issues and ideas not addressed by the statements still emerged, because of the interviews and the inclusion of the OCC. While a lot of these issues and ideas have been explored in the Findings section, some have not due to the constraints of this study.
This study therefore provides a useful template to anchor further research from.
Research that can further develop the findings of this study and develop concepts that have only been highlighted in this study.
As one OCC respondent stated: “I think the issues raised here are too complex…
Many of the questions can be answered in different ways if certain conditions or scenarios are taken into account.” Stocklmayer (2001, Foreword) also observed “the field is complex, requiring more research and more researchers of the highest talent in the future”.
It is hoped that the breadth of this study will provide other researchers with new direction for their research. Further solid research is paramount to the development of the profession and for providing professional science communicators with the knowledge to improve and update their skills.
Therefore this study calls on future research to place more of an emphasis on practical science communication research. Research into practical science communication is more likely to result in knowledge professional science communicators can use to develop more sophisticates skills and techniques. Skills and techniques that can result in more strategic science communication, where objectives are set, reached and science communication programs are properly evaluated.
The profession would also benefit from further definition and research into the range of science communications being conducted, and the techniques being used. There is
Page 37 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J also a need for research into the range of intended audiences and their perceptions and receptiveness towards scientists and science communications. Appropriate case studies are also required to demonstrate what constitutes effective science communication, that professional science communicators can draw from.
The OCC also brought up an issue about what science communicators shouldn’t do and that is always be a "science champion". They mentioned there is good science and there is bad science and a science communicator who criticises science (or some aspects of it) should still be considered a professional science communicator.
Alternatively a communicator who consistently gushes about science and promotes that 'science is good for society' should not be considered a professional science communicator because they don’t do any good for the science.
Then there was the discussion on the difference in accuracy between a science communicator and a scientist, and whether science communicators should be encouraging the current stereotypes of scientists.
These issues raise a critique around what constitutes ethical science communications that needs to be addressed. While it could not be explored in this study, it is an area ripe for future research. The research would need to address what constitutes ethical science communication and discuss the possibility of the adoption of a code of ethics for the science communication profession. This code of ethics would provide a benchmark for behaviour for the profession, while providing some guidance on what is considered ethical conduct for professional science communicators.
Whether it is working with science, a scientist or a scientific institution, science communicators can add immense value to science communication. This study has been able to provide an insight into science communicators and as a result science communication. But most importantly this study has highlighted a clear need for further research. Research that can provide professional science communicators with the knowledge to strategically improve their value, so the profession of science communication can fully emerge.
Page 38 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
References
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Australian Science Communicators website. 2004, ASC, viewed 5 March 2004,
<http://www.asc.asn.au/>
Bryant, C. 2004. National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, viewed 4
March 2004, <http://info.anu.edu.au/CPAS/Science_Communication/index.asp>
Burns, T.W. O'Connor, D.J. Stocklmayer, S. M. (ed.). April 2003, ‘Science communication: a contemporary definition.’ Public Understanding of Science,
Vol.12, No.2, pp.183-202.
Cribb, J. Hartomo T.S. 2002, A Guide to Effective Science Communication , CSIRO
Publishing, Melbourne.
Flaherty, T. B. Honeycutt, E. D. Powers, D. 1998. ‘Exploring text-based electronic mail surveys as means of primary data collection.’ The 1998 Academy of Marketing
Science National Conference Proceedings , pp. 260-64.
Lee, J. 2002. ‘What’s in a name?’ Biologist, Vol.49, No.2, pp.92.
Luegenbiehl, Heinz C. 1983. ‘Codes of Ethics and the Moral Education of Engineers’,
Business and Professional Ethics Journal, viewed 15 May 2004,
<http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/Introduction.html>
Metcalfe, J. Gascoigne, T. May 2004. ‘The science communication profession in
Australia’, paper presented at PCST 2004 Conference , viewed 25 May 2004,
<http://www.econnect.com.au/pdf/Parallel%20Session%20_2_.pdf>
MORI for The Wellcome Trust. 2001. The Role of Scientists in Public Debate ,
London, viewed 5 April 2004,
<http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/images/pubdebatenew.doc_3829.pdf>
Reed, R. & Walker, G. 2002. ‘Listening to scientists and journalists’, Science
Journalism , pp. 45-46.
Page 39 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Research Councils UK, 2002. Dialogue with the public: Practical guidelines , viewed
5 April 2004, <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/guidelines/dialogue/>
Social Care Association website. 2004. viewed 15 May 2004,
<http://socialcaring.co.uk/glossary_p.asp>
Stocklmayer, S.M. Gore, M.M. Bryant, C. 2001. Science Communication in Theory and Practice . Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Treise, D. 2002. Advancing science communication: a survey of science communicators. Science Communication , Vol.23, No.3, pp.310-322.
Wikipedia, 2004, viewed 25 May 2004,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_organization>
Willems, J. April 2003. ‘Bringing down barriers: public communication should be part of common scientific practice.’ Nature , Vol.422, pp.470.
Wimmer, R.; Dominick, J. 1994. Mass Media Research: An introduction.
Wadsworth
Publishing Company, USA.
Page 40 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 1: Interview questions
Science communicators:
Bridging the communication gap between the complex world of science and the simple information requirements of stakeholders.
Thank you for allowing me to interview you for my study on the role of science communicators. The interview will have two parts. The first section looks at your education and work experience background. The questions will provide me with an idea of the path you took to become a science communicator. The second section looks at the specialised skills and techniques you use to communicate science effectively.
Could you please answer questions 1 to 4 prior to the interview and e-mail them to bmullahy@bigpond.com. You can answer the rest of the questions during the interview, but you should have a look at them so you are familiar with them. This will assist me to keep the interview as close to an hour as possible.
Name
Position
:
:
Organisation :
Phone number :
1. Could you please provide an outline of your education history?
Your answer should include the full name of qualifications (these can be degrees, diplomas, cadetships, traineeships etc), where it was received from, any majors and its length. (Feel free to supply a copy of your resume if you think it will assist your answers to questions 1 and 2)
Full name of qualification Institution
Eg. Bachelor of Arts (Public
Relations)
RMIT University
Majors
Media relations
Length
4 yrs
2 . Could you please provide a summary of your work history prior to your current position?
Please include the key positions in sequential order. Include the organisation, position, time employed and type of work carried out. Do not include details about your current position in this question, as it will be covered in question 4. Once again feel free to supply a copy of your resume if it can help to answer this question. You may like to use this space to fill in what's not in your resume.
Organisation
Eg CSIRO
Position
Communications Director
Type of work media relations, publications,
Liaison with scientists
Length
4 yrs
Page 41 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
3. Does your education and/or work history in questions 1 and 2 show a change in career direction (i.e. you were a teacher before moving into science communications)?
4. Could you please explain why you became a science communicator?
Please describe your current position. Please include details about the type of organisation you work for, your responsibilities and type of science communication you encounter.
5. In your current position as a science communicator who are the main audiences you communicate with?
(Eg general public, scientists, government, journalists, employees, stakeholders, school students, etc)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. What types of science communication do you regularly engage in with these audiences?
(Eg journalism, publications, fundraising, internal communications, media relations, public speaking, government relations, community relations, etc)
7. Do you think the fundamental skills and techniques of science communication are the same as any other area of communications? Why or why not?
8. What steps or techniques do you take so these audiences can understand the science you are communicating?
Feel free to break it down if it is different for different audiences.
9. As a science communicator you often find yourself immersed in reading complicated scientific material. What steps do you take to break it down so you can understand it?
10. What resources do you rely on most to assist you to understand science?
This can include anything from previous education, speaking to someone, being sent by your organisation for training, using the Internet, etc.
11. Part of science communication is liaising with scientists. How easily do you absorb the scientific information from them and what techniques do you use to make it easier?
12. Science is well known for its jargon. How do you use or not use jargon so you can communicate science effectively?
13a. Do you think science in general should be communicated to a general public who doesn’t have an understanding of science? If so, why?
Page 42 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
13b. What is the best way to do this?
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
14a. Do you think a good science communicator needs to have good communication skills?
14b. Should they have formal qualifications in communications?
15a. Do you think a science communicator should have a good understanding of science?
15b. Should they have formal qualifications in science?
16. Do you have any other comments on the techniques you use to communicate science?
17. Any other comments at all?
Thank you for taking the time to complete this interview, it is greatly appreciated.
For further information contact:
Bridget Mullahy
Mobile: 0407 224 030 b_mullahy@bigpond.com
Page 43 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 2: Plain language Statement
School of Applied Communication, GPO Box 2476V Melbourne Victoria 3001 Australia
Tel: +61-3-9925 2829 Fax: +61-3-9925 3122 E-mail: macommc@rmit.edu.au
Science communicators:
Bridging the communication gap between the complex world of science and the simple information requirements of stakeholders.
My name is Bridget Mullahy and I’m a postgraduate student at RMIT University. I’m doing a minor thesis on the role of science communicators. This project is being undertaken as the part of the research component of an MA (Communication) by
Coursework.
The thesis will look at the techniques science communicators use to simplify science and if science communicators are required to have extensive skills in both science and communications to be effective. There are two main components to the thesis: a questionnaire to go out over the Australian Science Communicators (ASC) e-mail distribution list and four interviews.
Your participation in the interview is of course voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time.
The data gathered will be stored securely (in a lockable filing cabinet and/or on a password-protected computer drive) and will only be accessible to myself, my supervisor, and the examiner. All data collected during the course of the research will be archived on a confidential basis for a minimum of five years from the examination date. No data will be disclosed to any other persons, with the exception of possible academic publication in conference papers, articles and book chapters. In the project itself and any subsequent publications I will use pseudonyms and generalizing identifiable context to ensure the confidentiality of data.
Bridget Mullahy MA student, bmullahy@bigpond.com; 0407 224 030
School of Applied Communication, Faculty of Art, Design and Communication,
RMIT University
Supervisor:
Dr Jonathan Smith,
Lecturer, School of Applied Communication, RMIT jonathan.smit@rmit.edu.au
Phone 03 9925 2177
Any complaints about your participation in this project may be directed to the Secretary, RMIT Human Research Ethics
Committee, University Secretariat, RMIT, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, 3001. The telephone number is (03) 9925 1745.
Details of the complaints procedure are available from the above address.
Page 44 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 3: Details of Interviewees
Page 45 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Appendix 4: Adapted Likert Tool Data
Statement 1: A professional science communicator should have a higher education in science.
Strongly
Agree
27
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
44 15 10 5
•
It helps by ensuring that conversation and explanations are generally (one cannot say always) scientifically accurate. Telling something persuasively that ends up being inaccurate will lead to misconceptions in the community.
•
There's always exceptions to the general rule, but generally a science background is necessary
Statement 2: A professional science communicator should have a higher education in communication.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
45 24 15 2 15
•
A natural tendency to communicate is often enough and one can learn /practice how to communicate.
•
Agree. Although it is unclear what you mean by 'higher education'
•
I think a comms degree (e.g. a grad cert) is extremely useful for a young person entering the field of science comms. However, I also think there are some superb science communicators who, although they have not done a formal communication degree, excel at public speaking / writing / broadcasting. So basically I think a formal degree in comms is not necessary if the person has a lot of experience in the area, but can help 'fast-track' someone into the profession.
•
It helps to have communication training, however, whether it needs to be higher eduction or on the job training, or modules at TAFE, I don't know. Some people are just naturally good at communicating science and it may be more a case of understanding the communication protocols within your particular organisation.
•
Not necessary, it is easier to learn to be a excellent communicator than to gain a technical understanding of science research and application necessary to convey the important of interesting science and technological developments to the public.
Indeed, a higher science degree holder should have attained reasonable written and verbal presentation skills, as during the course of the PhD they should have given
5-10 talks to student or academic audiences. What they don’t usually have at the early stages of their career, is any experience communicating with politicians or journalists.
•
The ability to communicate is somewhat of a natural aptitude that people have, and some have it in one part of there communication skill set and not in others (eg good networking, people skills, poor writing etc), so whilst I believe that some communication training is valuable it is not essential.
Page 46 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 3: To a science communicator, a higher education in communication is more important than a higher education in science.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
15 25 42 10 9
•
I really don't think that people look hard at what qualifications other science communicators have. When working with someone, your opinion is usually based on how good they do their job and how easy they are to work with.
•
Ambiguous wording.
•
This issue lies at the heart of science communication. Is it better to train a scientist to be a communicator or educate a communicator in science? I was initially trained as a scientist but decided that communicating science was a better use of my skills.
This is the situation for many s communicators I know. However, there are many instances of good communicators who got interested in science and are successful science communicators. Ideally, in my opinion, a science communicator should have experience in both arenas. But this is not a cut and dry issue, and I don't believe that you can say one skill is more important than the other. It really depends upon the person and the communication situation (communicating science to government vs to children).
•
I would have preferred to be able to answer that it is as important for a science communicator to have a high ability to communicate, as it is to have a higher education in science. After all, one of the reasons we need science communicators is because many scientists are unable to communicate their work, in a meaningful way, to a broader audience
•
There’s a lot you can learn through experience … as with any degree, once you hit the real world and actually have to apply theoretical knowledge you realise how much you still have to learn. However, some of the reasons WHY you’d approach communication tasks one way rather than an another are easier to determine if you can call on communication, psychology or some other relevant area of theory.
• to have any real credibility you need a science background. Always exceptions, but generally true.
•
Some people are 'natural' communicators and do not need a higher education in communication to successfully and effectively communicate with the public. In my experience, these people are very, very rare - and I could name some that I have seen or worked with. And there is no 'job description'. Each of these gifted communicators is unique.
•
I considered propositions 1 and 2 were both valid since I can think of skilled and successful science communicators who have a science background (e.g., Dr Karl,
Monica Newby) or communications background (e.g., Julian Cribb, Karina Kelly), and who developed their expertise accordingly. One conclusion might be that qualifications in both disciplines are a recipe for success, but I think the degree of success will also rely to some extent on personality.
•
In my opinion, a professional science communicator should have a higher degree in
EITHER Science or Communication but does not NEED both. Neither is more important. They SHOULD have specific vocational training as a science communicator.
Page 47 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
I strongly feel that science communicators need a good grounding in basic science.
Communication skills can be learned, but if the communicator does not understand the fundamentals of science, then their communication efforts will not be effective.
Unfortunately, many organisations employ people with excellent communication skills (and degrees in English, Journalism etc) but no knowledge of science. This can lead to misreporting scientific findings, lack of knowledge about research methodology and inability to differentiate between jargon and correct scientific terminology...and ultimately, bad science communication. The best science communicators I have ever met have these things in common: - a passion for science - are often respected scientists in their field - the ability to communicate complex subjects to all types of people - willingness to keep learning and keep up to date with the research (which normally means subscribing to journals/early alert services/attending conferences...or doing higher degrees) One strategy I have found really useful when communicating science is to send the draft article to the researcher/principal author of the original paper for comment. This is contrary to everything taught in journalism school, but unless the science communicator is an expert in that field, it is too easy to misreport the science. I have found nearly all scientists I have contacted are more than happy for someone to report their work to a wider audience...as long as the story is accurate and the communicator does not make assumptions/inferences about the science that do not exist. Scientists have their professional reputations to uphold, and many journalists/communicators do not understand the implications of misrepresenting their research findings, particularly if it is a potentially contentious subject. As a postscript, there are some people who will never be interested in science, don't see it as relevant, and despite the maximum possible "dumbing down" of the subject, still will not understand it.
A good science communicator will identify their target audience, and tailor their communications to that audience, with a couple of degrees of freedom on either side. Hope this helps. (oh, and I've got no communications qualifications at all, but have had articles published in a number of science communication media.
However, I do have science qualifications; I have an Hons degree in Science, and am half way through a Masters in Environmental Science.)
•
Some people are 'natural' communicators and do not need a higher education in communication to successfully and effectively communicate with the public. In my
• experience, these people are very, very rare - and I could name some that I have seen or worked with. And there is no 'job description'. Each of these gifted communicators is unique. My pleasure - good questions. Good luck with your thesis.
Experience in science communication or allied professions (e.g. journalism) is a very important factor to consider apart from higher education qualifications in science and/or science communication.
Page 48 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 4: A key ingredient of a successful science communicator is being passionate about science.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
38 5 10 0 48
•
It is hard to ignore someone who is talking on a subject they are passionate about.
The energy is catchy.
•
I would not necessarily say 'passionate'; perhaps, 'strongly engaged' or 'always intrigued by' are better phrases; also, passionate tends to be seen as a feminine terms; see if your results differ based on gender.
• more so passionate about what science can achieve (outcome) not science per se
•
Charisma and passion are extremely useful but they need to be coupled with an objective mind and sound science. Charisma and passion alone are good at communicating the wow factor but science - good science that enable us to make a difference to the world - is so much more significant than simply a wow! Wow alone tends to almost denigrate the significance of the possibilities that science and technology harnessed well offer the Australian and world community in tackling the challenges that face us and in enjoying the diverse beauties of our complex planet.
Statement 5: The fundamental skills and techniques of science communication are the same as any other area of communication.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
56 7 25 1 12
•
The fundamental skills and techniques such as listening, knowing your audience and being generally polite /respecting other opinions, yes. Science communication is a slight specialisation of general communication.
•
Communications skills are fundamentally the same; need to understand the subject to be communicated is quite different from other areas.
•
It's about making sure the message and medium fit the market
• with more attention to detail
• agree with exceptions - you need to understand science (or have to ability to) and you need to understand and be able function in a communication culture and a science culture. Also you need the ability to translate without losing the true meaning, probably not something you get from a traditional communication education. But at its most simple level I agree with the statement
•
Not really. Most areas of communicating have the emphasis on marketing (eg. advertising), whereas because science concepts are usually intrinsically more difficult to clearly communicate to the lay audience, it is paramount to ensure firstly that the ideas are accurately understood. Fudging when you are conveying a difficult idea, often causes confusion rather than clarity.
Page 49 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 6: All science can be communicated to the general public.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
45 10 13 2 31
•
Yes all science but there are levels of science knowledge. I need to know only so much about tax - sufficient enough for me to obey the laws & fill out the tax return correctly. The in-depth tax laws can probably be communicated but there comes a certain point of how much detail do we need of atomic fission?
•
All science can be, to some degree, but a more important question is whether it
SHOULD be...
• though sometimes badly communicated!
•
N.A. some would argue that there is no such thing as 'general public'; what do you mean? jobless single mothers, retired veterans, early career marketing executives, mechanical engineers? and, what do you mean by 'all science'; can you give an example?
•
I think it is really more a question of should it all be communicated to the public?
This is a difficult issue because science communicators shouldn't be in the position of information gatekeepers, but does the public really need to know about every tiny step in basic science that may one day lead to a `breakthrough' that will cure disease X? Or the latest study showing that dietary supplement is good for you when the next study will show something different? We shouldn't withhold information from the public, but I worry that they are coming to mistrust (or ignore) science when the 'answers' are constantly changing, or ignore it as too confusing when the barrage of genetic etc advances are reported with little context. This is an issue for communicators in the media as well as those pitching stories to the media.
• agree in theory, the reality is that often we are not able to communicate with the general public due to policy and political overlays etc
•
Q6. My comments on Q11. also apply to Q6= I think distorting the science in "the interest of a good story" is bullshit. Whoever says that is just being lazy. It is possible to communicate science accurately and tell a good story at the same time, although some issues in science are obviously more difficult to do this with than others. If a science story is hard to tell then perhaps the communicator needs to take a different angle - such as a personal angle: i.e. exploring the scientist's life, turmoils, passion, joys and sacrifices for their science - what gets them going, why this is exciting for them - than focusing too much on the science itself. Those human interest elements are often more easily accessible than the technical side of the science.
•
Yes, some nations are much more aware of the value of science than others. And this probably translates into the public begin more receptive of significant funding for education and new technology development.
•
I disagreed with proposition 6 because there is complex theoretical science around which may be very difficult to communicate in meaningful terms to the general public. Your proposition might be taken literally, such that articles in "Nature" or quarterly scientific journals might be regarded as having been communicated to the general public - i.e., they're available to be read by the general public - but not
Page 50 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
• many members of the public would necessarily read them, and fewer might understand them fully.
I believe most science can be communicated to the general public (question 6), but with varying degrees of success. Health and medical research are often successfully communicated, as are reports on climate change and other such research of direct relevance to everyone. But most non-scientists, and scientists in unrelated disciplines, will not have a clue about quantum mechanics or general relativity because the more theoretical sciences require years of training to be understood.
Statement 7: Successful science communication captures the essence of the science without any of its complexity or jargon.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
39 14 29 0 19
• good communication can still preserve complexity.
•
Some ‘jargon’ is needed on some occasions to ensure precision; too often ‘jargon’ is seen/interpreted in a negative/pejorative sense in contrast to its positive/communications enhancing sense.
•
It depends on the audience for the communication - you must give the audience the message(s) in a way they can use it, and if that includes complexity and jargon, then you should use it!
• sometimes you need the complexity to explain the information
•
RE Q7: My disagreement here is mainly with the 'complexity', not with the 'jargon'
- I believe we can work around a lot of jargon. I do believe that one should always strive to simplify the complex. However, I think it's misleading to give OVERLYsimplistic views of science. This can lead people to develop a naïve, 'positivist' view of science. They can then become disillusioned with science when it can't provide a clear-cut answer to a problem, and become confused when experts disagree. In general, I've found that most people deal quite well with a bit of complexity - except, of course, for newspaper editors!!
• here, I see that you are interpreting 'science communication' to actually mean
'science presentation'; is that what your survey is about, training for science presenters? 'communication' is actually a two-way process, which some clients of
'communicators' are in dangers of forgetting or neglecting
•
Successful science communication often does capture the complexity of the science, but I agree that it does have to offload the jargon to be successful
•
Complexity yes, jargon no. Science is complex, so is life
•
Re Q7: I sort of agree, but sometimes involving some complexity is good because it helps dispel the idea that science is really quick and easy, which is how it seems when no complexity is shown. I think this simplified version of science may contribute to people asking questions like "with so many scientists and so much money, why haven't they found a cure for cancer" or similar questions.
•
RE Q 7 and 8. I think it is possible to capture the complexity of science in a story for the general public. And sometimes the jargon is necessary -- depends on its context I guess.
Page 51 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
I disagreed with propositions 7 & 8 because I believe that while a successful piece of science communication should capture the essence of the science, there is a place for jargon: if properly explained, jargon can help "connect" people to the material they're reading/seeing/ listening to. I enjoy learning the meaning of scientific terms because that gives me a feeling of having increased my understanding of a subject.
•
Hope this helps. You might want to distinguish between "complexity" and "jargon" in your discussion--they're not the same thing and not necessarily bad. Also, I'm not sure jargon has NO place, as long as it is fully explained (of course then it might not be "jargon" but technical language--if your definition of jargon is "unexplained techno babble" which, come to think of it, is not a bad one!) Good luck with your work.’
•
I believe most science can be communicated to the general public (question 6), but with varying degrees of success. Health and medical research are often successfully communicated, as are reports on climate change and other such research of direct relevance to everyone. But most non-scientists, and scientists in unrelated disciplines, will not have a clue about quantum mechanics or general relativity because the more theoretical sciences require years of training to be understood.
Related to that, I also think eliminating jargon and complexity completely is not the way to communicate science (questions 7 and 8). As science communicators, we are not here to patronise the public by diluting the science. We are responsible for communicating the science as it stands, not communicating our version of it. I happily use jargon provided it is both explained and justified. Good luck with your research!
Statement 8: Jargon has no place in science communication.
Strongly
Agree
6
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
32 22 40 1
•
It does need to come out now and then - such as AIDS, DNA and so forth. The community are not stupid and they will not flinch at big words, it is how the big words are used and explained.
•
See comments above. ‘Jargon’, in the sense of precise, technical language, is needed but its use may need to be limited depending on the target audience(s)
•
See Q7 above
•
In relation to question 8 about jargon would it not be a matter of who the intended audience is, for example if you were addressing a group of scientists then some jargon maybe of use whereas if you were addressing a group of non science people then jargon should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary. Also jargon may have changed so if you were addressing a group of students of High School,
College or University level then the jargon that you may use maybe different to the jargon that that the students have been/or are been taught.
•
RE Q8: Hmm, I hesitate to say that it has NO place - but certainly, any jargon should be very clearly defined!
• depends; when you explain jargon, then you open a world of understanding to your audience
Page 52 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
There are some terms that were once jargon, e.g. DNA, which have now become quite acceptable to the general public, so in some instances jargon can be used if the term is going to become ubiquitous in the future and early communication is the start of familiarising people with the term. These terms would be pretty rare, though, as most jargon is so specific to its discipline.
• people like jargon - to a lot of people that's what science is. The trick is getting the balance right. Take away all jargon and you may end up being patronising, not enough jargon taken out (too many long noun phrases) and people won't listen/read.
•
With regards to jargon - I think that science communication is about demystifying the scientific world and in that respect it is important to perhaps familiarise people with some jargon words while explaining them thoroughly. That way they may learn to be less afraid of jargon and less likely to switch off at the slightest hint of jargon - it may encourage them to ask questions to clarify what is being presented to them. I have no real evidence for this other than my own experience/style of communication.
•
It is a matter of amount. Most people can handle a few new terms or concepts in an article, and to some extent that is what makes it interesting. But not a plethora of jargon requiring a glossary - just as a book with huge number of characters and settings tends all but the more determined readers.
•
I believe most science can be communicated to the general public (question 6), but with varying degrees of success. Health and medical research are often successfully communicated, as are reports on climate change and other such research of direct relevance to everyone. But most non-scientists, and scientists in unrelated disciplines, will not have a clue about quantum mechanics or general relativity
• because the more theoretical sciences require years of training to be understood.
Related to that, I also think eliminating jargon and complexity completely is not the way to communicate science (questions 7 and 8). As science communicators, we are not here to patronise the public by diluting the science. We are responsible for communicating the science as it stands, not communicating our version of it. I happily use jargon provided it is both explained and justified. Good luck with your research!
I disagreed with propositions 7 & 8 because I believe that while a successful piece of science communication should capture the essence of the science, there is a place for jargon: if properly explained, jargon can help "connect" people to the material they're reading/seeing/ listening to. I enjoy learning the meaning of scientific terms because that gives me a feeling of having increased my understanding of a subject.
Statement 9: To communicate science to people without a background in science, you must demonstrate how the science relates to everyday life or they won’t understand it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
32 19 34 1 15
•
It certainly helps - is a very useful technique. Sometimes though, the science is pure research, for pure interest sake which would still relate to everyday life but it would be a long line drawn between the two.
Page 53 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
This question is badly worded. To get someone's attention prior to presenting your message it helps to make the subject meaningful to them. Relating science to everyday life helps to get their attention but doesn't ensure the audience will or won't understand the science. Therefore relating science to everyday life has nothing to do with understanding the science - it has to do with getting their attention. I can't answer the question because while I tend to place science in an everyday context I must do many other things to help my audience understand what
I am trying to get across. Also communication is a two way process and I seek feedback from the audience to alter or expand on my message if they don't understand or agree and find relevance in my initial approach. I suppose I have to say strongly disagree because the question shows lack of understanding of a communication process.)
•
IF YOU CAHNGE 'UNDERSTAND' TO 'SUPPORT'
•
Most people will understand most things if fed it in the right way. But there's no point communicating if it's not going to be useful or capture their interest, and it's here that the links to everyday life become important. This should be considered first, before deciding whether or not people will understand it.
•
...it's what gets them interested to understand - 'How does this relate to me'?
•
Q9 For the most part, I agree that it needs to relate to their life, or be put into a broad context so they know why or where it is happening. I think they can understand it without showing how it relates to their life, but they may not appreciate it or remember it. However, there is something to be said for the wonder of science. In some instances that stands alone.
•
People actually have a very good capacity to understand science that doesn’t relate to everyday life – most people claim to have an interest in space science without any concept of how it relates to their everyday life, and seem to understand the basics of space science to do with planets and orbits and the like. The issue here is more that the information needs to be relevant to them for them to take an interest in what you are trying to communicate.
• depends what your aim is - but if your aim is to communicate with Joe Public
Herald-Sun reader you either need to make it relevant to them or something weird/wonderful that catches their attention
•
It certainly helps. It is good to convey the relative scale of the scientific processes in everyday units, so they can get a feel for its magnitude or impact if it were to happen in a time and place near them. This helps to project the audience into the environment of the object, and by their ability to visualise, give them a vicarious entry into the research experience. This near role-playing approach also greatly improves the audience's memory retention of the presentation.
•
Re Q9: for many people science needs to be related to something relevant to their lives, but there are many (probably a minority) who are interested in science for its own sake, as an intellectual interest or process, even though they are not scientists.
My neutral responses mean "Don't know"
•
With respect to relating the science to every day life, it isn't always necessary.
Some stories stand on their own just as gee-whiz stories, others need the relating to everyday things to make it understood why the science is important.
Page 54 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 10: As an experienced science communicator, the techniques
I use to communicate science are very different to most scientists.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
50 29 10 0 12
•
I have to stay one off the 'strong' as scientists are passionate about their work and often lecture on the topic or present to peers /explain to students, all of which require some degree of communication 'technique'. There is a slight overlap in general communication requirements and often this comes down to personality.
•
Yes, because I'm generally communicating to different audiences, so it would be a problem if we DIDN'T use different techniques!
• the techniques differ and/or the extent to which I employ specific techniques differ; perhaps, you mean that the predominant techniques differ
•
I'm not a scientist or at best a social scientist so my skills are journalistic
•
Q10 Explaining jargon and putting their science into broad context are not things scientists always pay attention to. However, increasingly scientists are understanding how important this is. And I find that those who are interested in communicating science to the public do it reasonably well, or are quick learners when basic communication techniques are pointed out to them.
•
I think that our techniques (e.g. use of anecdotes & comparisons) are similar, it’s just the context of what we use that is different related to the different audiences we believe we are trying to communicate with. Even theatre does not escape this comparison – I once had a lecturer who sang his lectures on things like the Krebs
Cycle to the tunes of Gilbert & Sullivan (and taught us the lyrics) – and the lyrics were scientifically accurate. In exams you’d see everyone humming these tunes in their heads to get the answers to the questions!
• some scientists would say they are good communicators - some are /some not so
•
I think many scientists are very good at explaining their science - that is, they are good talent. However the production side of things is in the domain of the communicator.
Statement 11: Telling a science story to a non-scientific audience is more important than being 100% accurate to the science.
Strongly
Agree
2
Agree Neutral Strongly
25 19 35
Disagree
20
•
Inevitably a fact gets misquoted when relayed on to others, so the slight lapse in scientific accuracy in the initial presentation makes up for the fact that the person walked away enthused, excited and maybe a bit more interested to pick up a science mag /book. Even just a good impression of having had a decent conversation with a scientist. Breaking down the boundaries between science and the community comes in a variety of ways.
•
One should still be able to tell the truth in the ‘story’
Page 55 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
There is no way to be 100% accurate to much of science especially physics. Look at typical textbook explanations of electricity - in reality no one knows what electricity is but textbooks are happy to talk about its phenomena. It would help for communicators to say what is measurable, quantifiable or qualifiedly as well as saying what is not understood. Also often what is essentially a mathematical model is represented as reality. This is incorrect communication practice which often leads to great confusion to a learner or general listener. So I agree with the statement because to disagree is to not understand the nature of much science. Yet in my communication I attempt to be as accurate as my understanding and communication skills permit.
•
Can't answer as it is ambiguous. SIMPLIFYING the science is fine, being
INACCURATE is not. Some scientists would see simplification as being inaccurate. It depends what you mean by inaccurate. True inaccuracy is not on, but simplification and generalisation are both important (try teaching 6-year olds about nuclear physics without it). The trick is to be able to simplify and generalise without inaccuracy. The wrong models can hurt, too. My appreciation of electricity was forever blighted by the 'flowing water' analogy of my teachers.
•
WHY SHLD THEY BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
•
You must always be 100% accurate, but you can be accurate at different levels of complexity.
•
Don't need to be 100% 'specific in detail' as a true scientist would prefer
•
RE Q11: This is a tough call. I certainly don't think there's ANY excuse to simplify something to the point where we are telling fibs! (And for the same reason as I gave in my comments to Q7). However, I think often scientists go to the other extreme when they accuse science comms people of not being 100% accurate because they've left out a minor caveat, comment or piece of information. Once scientists realise that journo's etc have their own set of restrictions to deal with, they are often more understanding and a bit less pedantic. I think the trick is to capture the
ESSENCE of the story. So you have to do a bit of a balancing act between including too much complexity and/or qualifiers, and telling outright fibs.
•
I am not sure what you mean by telling a 'science story'; do you mean casting the information into a news or story format? then, there are those who would argue about the standards for being 100% accurate; what is the measure of accuracy and who judges? the story may be 100% accurate in the 'communicators'' eyes but not in the eyes of the scientist
• at least not 100% complete but as accurate as possible
•
Q11 You don't have to be 100% accurate to the degree of scientist communicating to scientist, but you have to get it right and be careful to not oversimplify. It can't be oversimplified to the point that it is no longer correct. Also. there needs to be enough detail for the audience to understand how you get from point a to point b without a lot of hand waving.
•
Though I may have a more lenient definition of “100% accurate” than the scientist
I’m working with!
• you need a balance, I tend to agree with the statement but you have to make sure that you are factual at all times....generalities are fine and appropriate but they must be factual
• as don’t as you don't tell untruths
Page 56 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
Q11. I think distorting the science in "the interest of a good story" is bullshit.
Whoever says that is just being lazy. It is possible to communicate science accurately and tell a good story at the same time, although some issues in science are obviously more difficult to do this with than others. If a science story is hard to tell then perhaps the communicator needs to take a different angle - such as a personal angle: i.e. exploring the scientist's life, turmoils, passion, joys and sacrifices for their science - what gets them going, why this is exciting for them - than focusing too much on the science itself. Those human interest elements are often more easily accessible than the technical side of the science.
•
Agree with reservation
• did I tell you about my recent Nanotech presentations?? - I think I accidentally exaggerated the science capabilities really well!
•
It is always important to be 100 per cent accurate in any form of communication - but it is not important to have the approval and support of the scientists concerned.
Statement 12: A person’s experience of science in school is directly related to how receptive they are to science communication later in life.
Strongly
Agree
11
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
38 24 27 1
•
Hard one to argue to staying neutral. School is certainly a big influence but then one does change as an adult and continue to change. I think the science communicator needs to be a bit of a chameleon and really it is a test on the person's communication skills to pick up hesitancies such as that.
•
I’ve not seen data on this. However, I know people whose receptivity is high despite very different amounts and types of exposure to science at school
•
School may be less important than influences in youth, eg from parents, friendly uncles - even good science TV for children. etc. School can actually blight some of these influences, but they can nonetheless remain strong enough to survive.
•
People will be receptive to science communication if they think it's important to them and/or it captures their interest. That doesn't depend on whether they had hands-on science instruction or not…
•
RE Q12. I think this does in fact tend to be true BUT (and this is the reason I've chosen to disagree) if that person, later in life, comes into close contact with science (say through a medical intervention) they can change their attitude.
•
I had a great Geography teacher in high school and science teacher good too, Mr
Tucker and Ms Poole respectively
•
Plenty of studies have shown that people undermine their own capacity to understand and engage with science in their adult life based on their formal experiences of science at school.
•
Maybe
•
Answered neutral with ?
•
If a person doesn't read much, then yes, their school science experience is likely to dominate their later views of science and R&D.
Page 57 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
Statement 14: We need more charismatic ambassadors of science in public life.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
36 7 5 2 51
•
Of course. Can never have enough.
•
In both senses: more ambassadors and ambassadors that have more charisma
•
Charisma should not be the key to improving public perceptions of science and its importance. More Dr Karls won't make a big difference to our R&D expenditure or rate of commercialisation of science research.
• do charismatic ambassadors LISTEN? after all, an ambassador reports to the
'foreigners' about the ambassador's homeland and reports on the 'foreigners'' homeland to the ambassador's compatriots
• eg # 13. Do you mean a greater number of charismatic ambassador? (That is what I agree with.) Or do you mean the ambassadors who are there should be more charismatic? (I would disagree with that. There are some great, charismatic ambassadors out there; just probably not enough of them.)
Statement 14: The stereotype of scientists being ‘mad professors’ no longer exists.
Strongly
Agree
0
Agree Neutral Strongly
Disagree
11 13 62 15
•
I would not say that it no longer exists but I would certainly say that it is out of fashion. With an increasing move toward numerous careers in one's life, more people freelancing etc there is an increasing acceptance of people and an awareness of stereotyping.
•
Hard to answer some of this. EG, the stereotype (Q 15) DOES exist, simply because some communicators play up to it, and Hollywood, of course, pushes this along. The cult of 'science communicator as identity' tends to promote the 'mad professor, routine, too, so although I don't think that the stereotype is terribly true of scientists, it has achieved a life of its own in the periphery of science.
•
EXISTS TO LESSER EXTENT
•
On Q 14: I think there is still a stereotype, but the classical 'mad scientist' is probably replaced with the 'tightly focussed out-of-touch-with reality scientist'. The problem to science in this is that 'scientific solutions' are often seen as poorly integrated with social expectations, and I can't see that this is entirely wrong.
•
It still exists, but is it necessarily a bad thing?
•
Still used by media occasionally; vision still prefers labs and white coats!
• except maybe 'mad' genetic engineers
• question 14 I think the image of the nutty professor is a thing of the past but I have a concern that there is a growing distrust of science and scientists. This is perhaps because of the science for hire we sometimes see (tobacco companies, nutrition etc, television advertising portraying “scientific tests show” and public scientific debate
Page 58 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J on issues eg global warming, medical procedures and treatments leading to “we don’t know who to believe” I would qualify the above by saying public opinion on these latter issues would vary according to demographics.
•
Maybe the ‘mad’ crazy Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde scenario is not quiet as strong .. it might have evolved that the term ‘eccentric’ would be a better description.
• the reality is that a number of stereotypes exist in society, and co-exist
• getting better but it is still out there
• a strong issue still is science dress lab coats glasses etc this is I feel there is a strong stereotype in the public mind and it should be addressed at every occasion of science communication... I.e. not encouraged!
•
Maybe should have been a question about the other science stereotype, the Nerd.
Statement 15: Would you like to add any comments on the issues raised?
•
Science communication is NOT about supporting and promoting science. It is about
COMMUNICATING science. A communicator who passionately criticises science
(or some aspects of it) is still a science communicator. A communicator who consistently gushes about science and promotes it uncritically is not a communicator, because the message cannot be trusted. Any communicator who starts off his or her career with the attitude that 'science is good for society' should pack up and go home (as should any communicator who starts off with the attitude that 'science is evil'). It is always important to be 100 per cent accurate in any form of communication - but it is not important to have the approval and support of the scientists concerned.
•
Whew, would love to argue /debate some of these points. Good luck with it!
•
Hello Bridget, I'm currently studying a Graduate Diploma in Scientific
Communication at the ANU. I don't know if you've heard of the Shell Questacon
Science Circus, but that's what I'm in right now. I haven't yet worked as a professional, but I can complete your survey from the point of view of a Science
Circus member. - Lara :-)
•
Bridget, Hope you make results available to ASC. Very interested in the attitude towards "dumbing down" which you allude to in a number of your questions. All the best with the Masters. James
•
Just that I am a scientist with interest in communication, rather than a professional science communicator
•
Would love to see the results.
•
I think this is a good survey, but perhaps a few questions on the requirements rather than qualifications of a good science communicator would be useful.
•
I'll be interested to see the overall results to 6, 7, 9 and 12: it could reveal a certain belief in some science communication circles that what we talk about/communicate is too complex/detailed for the average Joe or Jill, necessitating the information to be diluted or 'dumbed down'. This is a viewpoint I don't agree with at all, as I believe skilful science communication allows people with non-science backgrounds to understand aspects of science that are sometimes quite complex. Good luck with the study!!
Page 59 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
Coming from years of on-the-job training, I think there is an unhealthy push towards training specific "Science Communicators". Communicating specialised information to lay people should follow the same principles regardless of it being about physics, medicine, law or gardening! I've seen many "qualified" Science
Communicators who are very elitist and regimented in their communicating and, therefore, don't actually do a good job.
•
I think the issues raised here are too complex for a simple survey to fully comprehend. Many of the questions can be answered in different ways if certain conditions or scenarios are taken into account. There is no one right or true method of science communication. Different techniques work for different audiences, different media and different subject matter. Jargon does have its place in some science communication and should not be ruled out entirely. The more a term is used in everyday communication, the more people recognise and understand what it means. But one of the main things that must be adhered to in all science communication is the science must be right. To dumb things down or to put PR spin on it to "sell" science does more harm than good. One of the traps a science communicator can get into is to believe they are more intelligent or above their audience. This can lead to the communicator talking down to their audience, which just puts the audience offside. Also, a science communicator is not a "science champion". As with any subject, there is good science and there is bad science.
Every story should be reported on with a critical eye. My words of wisdom for the day. Good luck with your thesis.
•
It's a tough one. I'm not sure if I agree with all my answers (?!) I kept wanting to add buts and clarifications.
•
Please see my comments in [ brackets ] alongside the questions. Some people might wonder if you piloted the survey with a couple of science communicators before sending it out. As it is, I am not sure what the survey will show, though it seems like a reasonable exploratory instrument. It would also be interesting to get some demographic information on who is responding. The science communication arena has a certain limited diversity in terms of discipline, level of training, etc.
For that matter, I should qualify where I am coming from. I run the Science
Communication Program at UNSW; so I have my own biases about what constitutes successful science communication, aiming more for dialogue to replace presentation. Best of luck with your research as it is in a much needed area.
•
I think there needs to be some median between the flamboyant science communicator and the horrid science teacher you had at school. School science teachers have so much power yet don't realise it... I think the focus needs to be placed on communicating science in schools along with to the general public....
•
A passion for science is more important than higher science education when communicating science. The ability to ask the right questions of the scientist allows any skilled communicator to interpret jargon into everyday language. Jargon should not simply be left out; it needs to be defined so that people can then use this language to understand more about the everyday science that is happening around them. When communicating science to people without a background in science, demonstrating how the science relates to their life will help them appreciate is but it won't necessarily help them to understand it.
Page 60 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
Here you go, Bridget. I guess my opinion is biased, because I have a higher education degree in communication but not science! On another issue, I trust that this survey is confidential (in terms of my name not being used)?
•
No, but happy to be contacted if you need further info.
•
There is a need to convey the fundamental truth that science is complex, has a language of its own and is often a long and boring process. This is how science gets done, but how science gets translated to life is a different matter. What we make of science is where the big bang can be. There is no need to hide the truth about how science gets done. It is part of its charisma.
•
Science Communication is a mix of appealing to the audience's Head, Heart and
Hip Pocket. Also need to tailor messages to different audiences - regional vs metro
(esp. with environment stories), different states, etc.
•
My neutral responses reflect that I believe different science communication programs often require different approaches - i.e. for some programs I would agree with the statements, for others I would disagree.
•
I think there are many skills which can be brought to successful science communication. Backgrounds in science and communication are both relevant but I think the right person can do the job well with either of these. A 'passion' as such is not even necessary but an interest in the topic certainly helps.
•
I am a research scientist, and also a science communicator although not in a professional capacity. Some research scientists (sadly a minority) are also very effective science communicators J. I believe that part of a scientist’s professional development should involve training in communicating science. Story-telling ability is key to effective science communication but staying as accurate to the science as possible (without use of unexplained scientific jargon, but with retention of some degree of complexity) is also paramount in order to be truly educational through science communication. Is science more important or communication more important? This seems to be an underlying theme of your survey. I believe a thorough knowledge of both fields is equally important for professional science communicators. Without a depth of scientific understanding, no matter how good the communicator, simplifying and “dejargonising” science becomes a difficult task fraught with errors! Cheers –I look forward to reading the fruits of your research!
•
Just having a bit of trouble responding to some of these questions as I feel I need to qualify my answers with 'it depends' etc.
•
My neutral responses mean "Don't know"
•
The wording of some of your statements is problematic/ unclear. I would appreciate getting a summary of the responses. Thanks.
•
It's just communication. Make it relevant, keep it accurate, build a bridge of understanding
•
1. How is this a Likert survey? 2. The emphasis on higher degree gets up my nose a bit. You need a degree in science or an education in science, but to be honest, most of the science I know now was learned after I graduated and became a science teacher. 3. Communication skills can be learned in many ways -- I doubt the efficacy of higher degrees in teaching anything useful (I have a Master's in psychometrics).
Page 61 of 62
MA (Communication) by Coursework
Semester One, 2004
Minor Thesis
Science Communicators
Bridget Mullahy
9711298J
•
There is still much work to be done to convince the public that scientists are not just a bunch of self motivated mad professors spending public money on wild unethical, unnecessary projects
•
The more I think about it, the more confused I get!
Page 62 of 62
