March 4, 2018, by Brigitte Nerlich
Science communication: What was it, what is it, and what should it be?
Science communication still puzzles people it seems, and that includes me. To get to the bottom of that puzzlement I looked at a blog post entitled “What’s this science communication and public engagement stuff all about?” This post provides a really useful overview of science communication and public engagement and people who want or have to do ‘it’ should read it. What was most important for me was one sentence in a document cited in the blog, namely Participation Cymru’s National Principles for Public Engagement. The first principle is, I quote: “Engagement is effectively designed to make a difference. Engagement gives a real chance to influence policy, service design and delivery from an early stage.” I think that’s the crux of the puzzlement.
Performing science communication
For a very long time, from at least the late 18th century onwards, if not before, what one can broadly call ‘science communication’ was not there to ‘make a difference’ or to ‘have a chance to influence policy’ or, to use another fashionable phrase, induce ‘behaviour change’ (unless you include in that a change from not knowing [about] something to knowing [about] something). Did Michael Faraday demonstrate the workings of a candle to make people buy more candles?
Science communication was there for education and entertainment. Its main purpose was to make science accessible to ordinary people, to impart knowledge and to stimulate, if possible, enthusiasm and wonder. It was there to open doors to knowledge that were still closed to many; sometimes just to show people what’s there, sometimes to enable them to acquire enough information and understanding to open up science to public scrutiny. In a sense that’s what Mary Shelley did when writing Frankenstein 200 years ago, inspired, in part by popular science communicator, Humphry Davy and his Royal Institution lectures on galvanism and chemistry. In the 20th century, stimulating critical thinking about science and society was added to that ensemble. (And of course, I am simplifying a lot here) (added: after posting: and, as people on twitter have been rightly pointing out, this was a rather rose-tinted characterisation of 19th-century scicomm)
I’d add that it’s not only important to impart, through science communication, the knowledge and (ever-changing) facts that emerge from the activities of scientists; it’s also important for scientists to convey the values of science, and, informed by those, but stepping back from science communication as such, “to be active and engaged participants in civil society“.
Science communication within a performance culture
This is the type of science communication that many still have in mind (rightly or wrongly) when they hear the word ‘science communication’ (I think). However, over the last fifty or so years the phrase has become embedded in very different contexts and accumulated meanings that may be quite alien to good science communicators.
Rather than providing time and space and freedom to engage in science communication, there have been instead wave after wave of ‘directives’ from scholarly societies and research councils that make science communication more or less mandatory, but not just ‘science communication’; what is valued is science communication as part of ‘public engagement’. That’s not bad. But unfortunately, this now has been embedded in an overall agenda aimed at inducing policy and behaviour change, influencing influencers, and, of course, scoring winning goals in the impact agenda.
Scientists have gradually lost control over science communication in the process. It’s no longer what some of them love to do, but what everybody wants them to do. It’s also no longer just about making science and scientific knowledge accessible, it’s about making people ‘accept it’ so that they ‘do’ things in society that are beneficial to ‘society’ (as seen at various points in time by those who ‘police’ society, i.e. the policy and decision makers). It’s no longer related to reaching out (outreach) to the public; it’s about increasing the ‘global reach’ of academic (entrepreneurial) institutions. It’s not valued for itself but mainly because it can generate ‘public value’ for these institutions. This, of course, sucks the joy out of ‘science communication’, which is no longer spectacle, entertainment and performance but part of academic performance reviews….
In this process of taking control away from scientists, a whole academic industry has begun to flourish that is supposed to tell scientists what to communicate, how to communicate and for what reasons to communicate. Research into these matters has proliferated (and I have contributed to this proliferation). Unfortunately, the results of that research are largely published in places and in languages that scientists don’t visit and don’t really understand. As a result, there is some estrangement between those who still communicate and those who want to tell them how to do it.
Furthermore, not only has control been largely taken away from scientists with regard to science communication; instead they have been handed the responsibility of controlling people’s behaviour with regard to very complex issues of a largely political nature, something most scientists had not signed up for. Failures in policies can then be attributed to failures in ‘science communication’.
All this means that ‘science communication’ as a phrase has lost its core meaning and has become embroiled in a plethora of political issues which make it difficult for science communicators to do the right thing, whatever that may be.
Taking back control over science communication
So how can one take back control over science communication and make it a joyful and useful activity. It would of course be nice to no longer having to think about REF and impact, but that’s a big ask. For the moment, it might just be useful to no longer tell scientists that they are bad at communicating science (see Tim Radford’s article) and to get away from fetishising the deficit model, something that those advising science communicators how to communicate often do.
So I’ll end by quoting a long passage from a text that I admire a lot and which makes the case ‘for’ the deficit model. It was written by David Dickson, founding director of SciDev.Net, who unfortunately died suddenly in 2013:
“What is true of news reporting in general also applies to the public communication of science and technology. One of the challenges facing all of those engaged in such activity is not only to make science communication an important channel for the essential dialogue between science and society, but also to ensure that this dialogue is solidly based on fact.
In other words, both journalists and other types of science communicator face the task of providing individuals with the facts that empower them to engage properly in such dialogue. Their ultimate goal should be to ensure that decisions emerging from such dialogue are taken in a way that is both appropriately democratic and informed.
Substantial and effective dialogue will only take place when those on both sides have a sound understanding of the relevant factual evidence; indeed evidence-based decision-making is an ideal that we should aspire to at every level of society, from local communities to the top levels of government. If the relevant evidence is absent — which often, sadly, turns out to be the case — then it is surely the role of the science communicator to fill the gap. In other words, to make up the relevant ‘knowledge deficit’.”
Image: Flickr
PS added after posting: Some more in-depth reflections on the nature of scicomm by Peter Broks here.
Thanks Brigitte, I really enjoyed this. At least the fun hasn’t been sucked out of writing/thinking about science communication! I think you are right to emphasise the importance of entertainment in early 19th century “science communication” but it did have other roles as well. It can be placed within a broader middle class effort at social control (cf Mechanics Institutes, SDUK etc). In this sense it would be about behaviour change and making a difference albeit directed towards maintaining the status quo. I often wonder whether that is still its role.
Yes, you are right! I was sort of over-egging the wonderfulness of it all in ‘the past’ in order to set up a contrast with the present. And I was sure somebody would point that out to me. So I am glad you did!
Its an interesting post. I think its important to emphasise though that their are layers of science engagement which encompass everything from lectures and table top activity through to co-developing research and all this is valuable potentially. The critical thing is to consider the purpose of the engagement activity and the audience it is for and then you evaluate it accordingly.
Personally I think that recognition of the hard work for staff and students that do this is critical. Many surveys including one I did in Manchester show that people feel their work goes under appreciated and unrecognised. For too many pe is something they fit in in their spare time. Thus rewarding and recognition of that work is crucial.
That is certainly true!! In the 2008 REF moves began to recognise public engagement more in promotions etc. and I think some progress has been made in that. But there is a long way to go to recognise all the unpaid work that people do for their universities. See here: “As a result of these findings the Royal Society argued that involvement in public engagement should be rewarded at a departmental level and make a positive contribution to the career progression of scientists. Furthermore, it was argued that institutions and funding bodies need to provide better support for scientists undertaking activities involving public engagement.” But still, people normally don’t actually do it for institutional ‘rewards’. They find it rewarding. While institutions turn it into another tick-box – ok I am oversimplifying and overgeneralising here, of course.
Great post–a lot more thinking along these lines is needed. Perspectives in return:
1. Some of the bondage is self-imposed–which suggests that there are some hidden upsides to the “science communication” story. I hear it from (non-elite) scientists a lot: Especially given the “war on science,” it’s essential for scientists to intervene with “science communication” to induce policy and behavioral changes; but unfortunately it is _intrinsic_ to science that “scientists are bad at communication,” due to their disciplinary jargon, love of accuracy, expert knowledge, etc. You can see that this story attributes to scientists great power, but also absolves them of responsibility.
2. From the American PoV, the relentless focus on “science communication” is part of a more general cultural understanding that “communication” solves all problems–well documented in the literature on the ethnography of communication (e.g., G. Philipsen _Speaking Culturally_, 1992). John Durham Peters eviscerated this ideology in _Speaking into the Air_ (1999) in part by going back to the earliest uses of “communication” in spiritualism (another 19th century trend)–you may want to read it, it’s mind-blowing.
3. Also from the American PoV, we are in even bigger trouble, because we are now developing a “science of science communication” that promises effectiveness in meeting the demands of the science establishment (societies, research council).
Yes, the science of science communication that’s a whole other story…..
I’ll have to read the literature on the ethnography of communication! That looks really interesting.
Jean,
It would be interesting if someone who looks more deeply at SciComm could elaborate on this a bit more, because I don’t really understand what this implies. I often see scientists accussed of deficit model thinking; the implication (as I understand it) is that simply providing information (reducing the knowledge deficit) does not lead to acceptance and policy action. The idea being that there are many other political/societal factors that influence people’s perception/acceptance of scientific evidence and that also influence what we should do given that iformation (even if it is accepted). However, by suggesting that scientists are somehow absolving themselves of responsibility seems to suggest that you’re implying that they should somehow find ways to influence public perception and, potentially, policy. However, if scientific information alone does not define what we should accept/do, in what way are scientists then responsible for doing so.
To be clear, I’m not trying to absolve scientists of responsibilty – I think scientists should play a role engaging with the public and with policy makers. I’m just trying to understand what people are implying when they suggest that somehow scientists are absolving themselves of responsibility. Essentially, what is their responsibility, and why?
(I will add that I think that the narrative that scientists are poor communicators is simplistic/wrong, but that’s a slightly different issue).
The question really is what responsibility are scientists expected to have by others and what responsibility do scientists themselves think they have, should have etc. There is probably a lot of variation here but I would bet the contrast is starkest between what scientists think themselves about their responsibilities and what others think their responsibilities should be. Furthermore, others probably make a lot of assumptions about what scientists think about responsibility – myself included – and base their judgements on these assumptions. This really needs a bit or empirical research.
That’s a very good point. I suspect there is quite a difference between what scientists regard as their responsibility and what others (the public, for example) might regard as their responsibility. I suspect it also depends a little on the topic. There are some (public health, for example) where there may even be some kind of political mandate to influence public opinion (don’t smoke, eat fruit, etc) and others whether either no such mandate exists, or where the direction in which the public should be influenced is not obvious, or agreed.
Hi, Ken: First off, let me say that my account of “scientists’ conception/story/myth/ideology” of science communication is a work in progress. Currently based in anecdote (I interact with a lot of scientists), I have a project going to document what scientists (and friends-of-science) tell themselves about science communication–trying to meet Brigitte’s call for empirical research.
With that caveat: The basic story I hear from scientists often gives scientists’ communication a key role in resolving issues of immense importance. E.g. AGW: “we could make a sound policy if only we could figure out a way to effectively fight the denialists and get the public to believe in climate change.” But at the same time, scientists frequently tell me that “scientists are bad at communication.” And the reasons mentioned for why they’re bad are the exact reasons that they’re good scientists–love of accuracy and precision, extensive disciplinary knowledge, specialized vocabulary. So according to the story scientists are telling themselves, scientists are essential, but also are provided in advance with a great excuse for not achieving success.
In my view, we’d be better off if scientists communicated based on more adequate (realistic) stories about science communication–something more like the conception I see you laying out in your reply. We’d need to recognize:
– The systems through which collective policies and personal decisions are deliberated upon and decided are immense and complex. (And this isn’t even to mention the roles science/scientists can play in the broader culture, as for entertainment/joy.)
– Scientists and scientific information plays relatively small roles in these systems. Improved “science communication” is unlikely on it own to solve the problems we face–it’s not often a key lever for policy or decisional change.
– Though the roles may be small, it’s still important to cultivate them. A functioning system has lots of small pieces working together well.
– Scientists have many and diverse responsibilities in the overall systems. Here I’ll give a plug for my essay in our just-out book: _Ethics & Practice in Science Communication_ (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo27760792.html).
– Over time, scientists have developed many practices to fulfill these responsibilities well. For example, the IPCC reports have evolved under pressure to be remarkably good. (Whether they’re a good investment of scarce resources is another question.) Or in other words: lots of scientists communicate well! And we can learn a lot by observing what they do.
Scientists’ responsibilities include making sure that information is accessible to others in the system. That’s one of the things Brigitte is arguing for in this post. All aspects of the standard story about scientists’ communication need to be questioned, including ritualistic denunciations of “deficit model.”
Hey, thanks for giving me the opportunity to write this out.
Thanks for the response.
I suspect there may well be scientists who say this. I doubt that those who do have spent much time actually engaging publicly. Those who do learn very quickly that it is not nearly this simple.
Again, maybe scientists do say this, but I don’t think it’s really true. There are clearly some scientists who are very poor communicators, but then there appear to be some communications experts who are very poor communicators. There are – as far as I can see – many scientists who are very effective communicators. My own view is that the “scientists are poor communicators” narrative is simplistic at best, and maybe even wrong (in the sense that they’re not really worse than any other group who don’t have specific expertise in communicating).
Agreed, I think that climate change is an example of very effective communication. We may not yet be implementing particularly effective policies, but that doesn’t change that the information is very accessible and many policy makers (and many governments) have accepted the reality of climate change even if they haven’t yet managed to implement anything particularly effective in response.
Absolutely, and – as far as I’m aware – many scientists do indeed see this as their responsibilty, and many are very good at doing this. The problem that I’ve seen is that doing this then gets labelled as deficit model thinking. My own view, as a scientist, is that I can play some kind of role in communicating scientific information, even if doing so will not, by itself, suddenly influence public opinion.
Agreed, this pretty much sums up my thinking on this.
Just to say. I was once part of a carbon capture and storage project, as the token social scientist. People found out that I was once a linguist. They also confused social science with science communication and science communication with PR. They (and that came from the uni PR people rather than the scientists, geologists, chemists etc) then asked me whether I could use that expertise to come up with a list of words that would make people accept CCS more readily. Of course I didn’t comply with that request. It took me a while to dispel some deficits in understanding regarding what my role was, but in the end the lead scientist got it and when we were together at a public engagement event on CCS he said quite literally that we, him, me etc. certainly didn’t just want to persuade people to accept CCS by using nice words etc., but we felt they should at least be informed about what it involved and what it was hoped to achieve. That felt quite good.
To be fair, I think I initially did something similar (I was certainly very confused about what role social scientists were playing when it came to science and society).
This pretty much encapsulates one of my issues. I think effective communication is important, but it shouldn’t simply be some kind of marketing exercise that aims to convince people of something without really being too bothered about how informed they are about what they’ve accepted.
This looks like a REALLY important book!! It asks amongst other things: “And, most fundamentally, what is the purpose of communicating science to the public: Is it to inform and empower? Or to persuade-to influence behavior and policy?” !! And it has speech act theory in it – I have ordered the paperback version!
I once tried to play withe speech act theory in the context of science advice. So I am looking forward to this https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/12/science-politics-and-certainty/
Hey, we were just happy to be the second scicomm book with ‘ethics’ in the title, after yours:
https://www.routledge.com/Communicating-Biological-Sciences-Ethical-and-Metaphorical-Dimensions/Elliott-Nerlich/p/book/9781315572888
Ha, I had totally forgotten about that! There are some nice chapters in there. Some are a bit waffly.
[…] Science and Society, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham. She blogs at Making Science Public and tweets as @BNerlich. Catch her at the Pint of Science Festival where she will talk […]
[…] Science communication: What was it, what is it, and what should it be? […]
[…] a science communicator how old their field is. They might say a few decades, or even centuries, because they’re thinking about the Western science communication tradition associated with a […]
[…] a science communicator how old their field is. They might say a few decades, or even centuries, because they’re thinking about the Western science communication tradition associated with a […]