Science Communication is Not Just for Scientists
Science communication is an increasingly visible field. In recent decades, it has expanded to produce toolkits, workshops, and professional organizations. It’s also a healthy area of research with industry-specific journals like Science Communication and the Journal of Science Communication.
When you hear the term “science communication,” you might think about NASA scientists trying to explain their complicated research to laypersons. But science communication can really be for anyone. And it’s important we think about it in that way. Why? Because we live in a world with complex science topics that affect our daily lives.
Why is science communication important?
Science communication is hugely important in our current day and age. Says the International Science Council,
“While global polls suggest that in most countries, as an aggregate, trust in science has increased among the general public, there are still reasons to worry. First, these polls support the idea that trust varies greatly depending on the time of polling, the demographic polled and the scientific issue. Also, harassment of scientists has increased over the last two years. And there have been a number of high-profile examples through the COVID pandemic of major policy pronouncements that make a show of dismissing scientific expertise, for example in the U.S. or Brazil.”
In the past few years alone, we’ve had to interpret dozens of health and safety notifications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the COVID-19 pandemic and the incoming monkeypox outbreak. For decades, we’ve heard about the dangers of climate change and extreme weather events. These things do not happen in isolation and it’s important for STEM personnel to be able to communicate their messages successfully to everyone, and for everyone to be able to understand and think critically about the information they are receiving.
And science communication (or STEM communication really), is increasingly important as we move into a more technologically advanced world. Students today need to be able to understand, interpret, and apply advanced STEM concepts in their coursework and everyday lives. STEM and non-STEM professionals need to engage with new technologies, make important decisions for their health, and do what they can to conserve our planet.
As you can see, everyone has a role in science communication.
What’s the difference between science communication or informal STEM education?
While some view science communication and informal STEM learning as totally different, there is significant overlap in the aims and processes of the two.
According to the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), “Informal STEM education (ISE) and science communication are two overlapping fields in which practitioners and researchers design and study activities to promote lifelong engagement with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in a variety of settings.”
For more information about the similarities and differences between informal STEM education and science (or STEM) communication, check out this network analysis and this bibliometric study. One takeaway that was interesting to me is that the bibliometric study seemed to suggest that informal STEM education may be more focused on students, whereas science communication may be more focused on the general public.
These fields share more similarities than one might think.
In education, we’re familiar with the idea of communicating complex ideas to a non-STEM audience. Science communicators, educators, and evaluators alike spend critical time thinking about how to make our work the most culturally responsive and developmentally appropriate that it can be. We scaffold our lesson plans (or our surveys, or our climate change messaging, etc.) to fit the needs of our audiences.
And that is critically important.
We know that for people to get interested in STEM and to develop their sense of belonging in STEM (in other words: to think that STEM is a place for them) we need to meet them where they’re at. This approach to our work - scaffolding, gearing to our audiences, etc. - is the exact same as used in science communication.
And these are skills not only reserved for professionals. The Next Generation Science Standards have identified “Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information” as a necessary skill for students. As the standards state, “Scientists and engineers must be able to communicate clearly and persuasively the ideas and methods they generate.” And so should students.
Does Science Communication Intersect with Evaluation?
In evaluation, you’ll often see how we select our methodologies and approaches based on the audiences we’re serving. Be that through developing various versions of the same instrument for different age groups, including our audiences in the design and meaning-making processes, testing out methodologies with folks in the population we’re hoping to reach (just to make sure it makes total sense to them), or choosing developmentally appropriate methodologies (because not everyone can do - or wants to do - a survey).
You’ll also see it in how we choose to communicate with our audiences and partners. Personally, I rely on a participatory approach that includes stakeholders in the meaning-making process. I also employ best practices in data visualization, adapted from the work of rockstars like Stephanie Evergreen to make sure that the data speaks for itself. Science communication is pervasive and intersecting in the informal STEM education space and beyond. As you can see, elements of science communication mirror our best practices in other spaces, because being able to communicate effectively is one of the most important skills we have.
Where do we go from here?
In light of the current challenges in science communication, there are plenty of things educators, STEM professionals, and even evaluators can do to enhance our work. The International Science Council has identified six key takeaways about science communication from a recent webinar series:
We need to revisit how we think of the general public.
We need to revisit how we think of the ‘anti-science’ movement.
Digital platforms can be allies.
Climate change communication has grown more sophisticated about audiences.
Research institutions need to be designed better for trust.
Capacity building in science communication does not mean doing it all.
Consider these points and your work. One thing I’ll be thinking about is how research and evaluation spaces can do better to build trust and increase transparency in their processes.
If you enjoyed this post, follow along with Improved Insights by signing up for our monthly newsletter. Subscribers get first access to our blog posts, as well as Improved Insights updates and our 60-Second Suggestions. Join us!