Bringing Science to Bars: A Strategy for Effective Science Communication

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 819-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Zheng Kai Tan ◽  
Jose Angelo Udal Perucho

It is well accepted that it is part of a scientist’s duty to communicate science, yet most practicing scientists lack the training and opportunity to do so. In this article, we use the framework of science talks in bars to highlight the importance of locality and environment. We propose that science communication programs should be developed around the locales of the target community as an effective strategy to counter the rising mistrust in science and scientists.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashmi Shivni ◽  
Christina Cline ◽  
Morgan Newport ◽  
Shupei Yuan ◽  
Heather E. Bergan-Roller

Abstract Background Seminal reports, based on recommendations by educators, scientists, and in collaboration with students, have called for undergraduate curricula to engage students in some of the same practices as scientists—one of which is communicating science with a general, non-scientific audience (SciComm). Unfortunately, very little research has focused on helping students develop these skills. An important early step in creating effective and efficient curricula is understanding what baseline skills students have prior to instruction. Here, we used the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework to survey the SciComm skills of students in an environmental science course in which they had little SciComm training. Results Our analyses revealed that, despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students commonly targeted broad audiences composed of interested adults, aimed to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience, and planned and executed remote projects using print on social media. Additionally, students demonstrated flexibility in their skills by slightly differing their choices depending on the context of the assignment, such as creating more engaging content than they had planned for. Conclusions The students exhibited several key baseline skills, even though they had minimal training on the best practices of SciComm; however, more support is required to help students become better communicators, and more work in different contexts may be beneficial to acquire additional perspectives on SciComm skills among a variety of science students. The few elements that were not well highlighted in the students’ projects may not have been as intuitive to novice communicators. Thus, we provide recommendations for how educators can help their undergraduate science students develop valuable, prescribed SciComm skills. Some of these recommendations include helping students determine the right audience for their communication project, providing opportunities for students to try multiple media types, determining the type of language that is appropriate for the audience, and encouraging students to aim for a mix of communication objectives. With this guidance, educators can better prepare their students to become a more open and communicative generation of scientists and citizens.


2018 ◽  
Vol 116 (16) ◽  
pp. 7670-7675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baruch Fischhoff

Effective science communication requires assembling scientists with knowledge relevant to decision makers, translating that knowledge into useful terms, establishing trusted two-way communication channels, evaluating the process, and refining it as needed. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [National Research Council (2017)] surveys the scientific foundations for accomplishing these tasks, the research agenda for improving them, and the essential collaborative relations with decision makers and communication professionals. Recognizing the complexity of the science, the decisions, and the communication processes, the report calls for a systems approach. This perspective offers an approach to creating such systems by adapting scientific methods to the practical constraints of science communication. It considers staffing (are the right people involved?), internal collaboration (are they talking to one another?), and external collaboration (are they talking to other stakeholders?). It focuses on contexts where the goal of science communication is helping people to make autonomous choices rather than promoting specific behaviors (e.g., voter turnout, vaccination rates, energy consumption). The approach is illustrated with research in two domains: decisions about preventing sexual assault and responding to pandemic disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel S. Courtney ◽  
Ana-Maria Bliuc

Following decreasing vaccination rates over the last two decades, understanding the roots of vaccine hesitancy has become a public health priority. Vaccine hesitancy is linked to scientifically unfounded fears around the MMR vaccine and autism which are often fuelled by misinformation spread on social media. To counteract the effects of misinformation about vaccines and in particular the falling vaccination rates, much research has focused on identifying the antecedents of vaccine hesitancy. As antecedents of vaccine hesitancy are contextually dependent, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful in non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) populations, and even in certain (non-typical) WEIRD sub-populations. Successful interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy must be based on understanding of the specific context. To identify potential contextual differences in the antecedents of vaccine hesitancy, we review research from three non-WEIRD populations in East Asia, and three WEIRD sub-populations. We find that regardless of the context, mistrust seems to be the key factor leading to vaccine hesitancy. However, the object of mistrust varies across WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations, and across WEIRD subgroups suggesting that effective science communication must be mindful of these differences.


mBio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo G. Torres ◽  
Maria Elena Bottazzi ◽  
Floyd L. Wormley

The way that diversity, equity, and inclusion impact scientific careers varies for everyone, but it is evident that institutions providing an environment where being different or having differences creates a sense of being welcomed, supported, and valued are beneficial to the scientific community at large. In this commentary, three short stories from Texas-based microbiologists are used to depict (i) the importance of bringing the guiding principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion within their professional roles, (ii) the need to apply and translate those principles to support and enable successful scientific careers among peers and trainees, and (iii) the impact of effective science communication to increase the understanding of microbial environments among the community at large.


Author(s):  
James N. Druckman ◽  
Arthur Lupia

Science can serve as a valuable foundation for the making of public policy. For science to have this effect, it must be effectively communicated to individuals, organizations, and institutions. Effective science communication often involves frames that highlight particular aspects of a scientific finding or issue. This chapter discusses ways in which frames can be used to facilitate effective scientific communication—particularly we explore the impact of frames with regard to attention limitations, political polarization, and the politicization of science. We also highlight unanswered questions and challenges. The main lesson of this chapter is that there are certain conditions under which choosing particular frames yields more effective communication. While understanding these conditions does not guarantee success, it can help science communicators avoid common mistakes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 845-853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia M. Bullock ◽  
Daniel Colón Amill ◽  
Hillary C. Shulman ◽  
Graham N. Dixon

In this experiment ( N = 650), we examine the negative consequences of jargon on individuals’ perceptions of emerging scientific technology and aim to explain these effects. We find that the presence of jargon impairs people’s ability to process scientific information, and that this impairment leads to greater motivated resistance to persuasion, increased risk perceptions, and lower support for technology adoption. These findings suggest that the use of jargon undermines efforts to inform and persuade the public through the cognitive mechanism of metacognition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document