What's in a Name? Exploring the Nomenclature of Science Communication in the UK

Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists' definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands

The field of science communication has grown considerably over the past decade, and so have the number of scientific writings on what science communication is and how it should be practiced. The multitude of theoretisations and models has led to a lack of clarity in defining science communication, and to a highly popularised-and theorised-rhetorical shift from deficit to dialogue and participation. With this study, we aim to remediate the absence of research into what science communication is, for scientists themselves. We also investigate whether the transition towards dialogue and participation is reflected in the goals scientists identify as important to their science communication efforts, both in a general and a social media context. For this, we analyse survey data collected from scientists in the Netherlands using thematic qualitative analysis and statistical analysis. Our results reveal six main dimensions of science communication as defined by our respondents. The 584 definitions we analyse demonstrate a focus on a one-way process of transmission and translation of scientific results and their impacts towards a lay audience, via mostly traditional media channels, with the goals of making science more accessible, of educating audiences, and of raising awareness about science. In terms of the goals identified as most important by scientists in the Netherlands, we find goals aligned with the deficit and dialogue models of science communication to be the most important. Overall, our findings suggest we should be cautious in the face of recent claims that we live in a new era of dialogue, transparency, and participation in the realm of science communication.

Not Communicating science? Aiming for national impact

Communicating science to wider lay audiences is of increasing importance and is becoming an ever larger part of a scientist's remit which also offers important opportunities. We discuss here the current state of science communication in the field of the natural sciences in the UK, and the enormous improvements that could be achieved through putting more weight on objective-driven long-term initiatives, ideally in the form of interdisciplinary networks, to achieve higher impact. We describe the barriers that stand in the way of such developments and make a number of suggestions how funding organisations in particular could play a major role in overcoming these barriers.

What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

The overall aim of public academic science communication is to engage a non-scientist with a particular field of science and/or research topic, often driven by the expertise of the academic. An e-survey was designed to provide insight into respondent’s current and future engagement with science communication activities. Respondents provided a wide range of ideas and concerns as to the ‘common practice’ of academic science communication, and whilst they support some of these popular approaches (such as open-door events and science festivals), there are alternatives that may enable wider engagement. Suggestions of internet-based approaches and digital media were strongly encouraged, and although respondents found merits in methods such as science festivals, limitations such as geography, time and topic of interest were a barrier to engagement for some. Academics and scientists need to think carefully about how they plan their science communication activities and carry out evaluations, including considering the point of view of the public, as although defaulting to hands-on open door events at their university may seem like the expected standard, it may not be the best way to reach the intended audience.

What's in a Name? Exploring the Nomenclature of Science Communication in the UK

This study, via a consideration of the literature, and a limited survey of active science communicators, presents concise and workable definitions for science outreach, public engagement, widening participation, and knowledge exchange, in a UK context. 

Sixty-six per cent of participants agreed that their definitions of outreach, public engagement, and widening participation aligned with those of their colleagues, whilst 64% felt that their personal definitions matched those of their institute. However, closer inspection of the open-ended questions found the respondents often differed in the use of the nomenclature. In particular, the respondents found it difficult to define knowledge exchange in this context. It is hoped that this initial study will form the foundation of future work in this area, and that it will help to further develop the debate regarding the need for a consistent nomenclature across science communication.