scholarly journals Public science communication in Africa: views and practices of academics at the National University of Science and Technology in Zimbabwe

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. A05 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Ndlovu ◽  
Marina Joubert ◽  
Nelius Boshoff

This study of the science communication views and practices of African researchers ― academics at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) in Zimbabwe ― reveals a bleak picture of the low status of public science engagement in the developing world. Researchers prioritise peer communication and pay little attention to the public, policy makers and popular media. Most scientists believe the public is largely not scientifically literate or interested in research. An unstable funding environment, a lack of communication incentives and censoring of politically sensitive findings further constrain researchers' interest in public engagement. Most NUST academics, however, are interested in science communication training. We suggest interventions that could revive and support public science engagement at African universities.

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Bryant ◽  
Mike Gore ◽  
Sue Stocklmayer

Part 1: Scholarly concerns over science communication and in particular public attitudes towards and engagement with science have continued for almost half a century, but the establishment of a ‘hands-on' science centre in Canberra in 1980 put practice ahead of theory and led to the building of Questacon—the National Science and Technology Centre in 1988. The driving force behind this development was Australian National University physicist Dr Mike Gore. Funding came from the Australian and Japanese Governments—the latter a bicentennial gift—and a team of ‘explainers' at the centre helped visitors to appreciate that this science centre was not a museum but a place where science had a human face.


2020 ◽  
pp. 107554702097163
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Rubega ◽  
Kevin R. Burgio ◽  
A. Andrew M. MacDonald ◽  
Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch ◽  
Robert S. Capers ◽  
...  

As the science community has recognized the vital role of communicating to the public, science communication training has proliferated. The development of rigorous, comparable approaches to assessment of training has not kept pace. We conducted a fully controlled experiment using a semester-long science communication course, and audience assessment of communicator performance. Evaluators scored the communication competence of trainees and their matched, untrained controls, before and after training. Bayesian analysis of the data showed very small gains in communication skills of trainees, and no difference from untrained controls. High variance in scores suggests little agreement on what constitutes “good” communication.


2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane M. Daley

Many countries around the world have instituted day-long or week-long events celebrating science and technology. This article describes the “Public Science Day” sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of science, focusing especially on organizational context, goals, and activities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
Andreas Christiansen ◽  
Karin Jonch-Clausen ◽  
Klemens Kappel

Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 1950028
Author(s):  
SUNEEL KUNAMANENI

Low-cost innovation is increasingly becoming the focus of attention of both firms and policy makers in emerging and transition countries. Previous research has elaborated on the ‘market-based’ view of low-cost innovations captured under various terminologies such as ‘frugal’, ‘good-enough’, ‘resource-constrained’, etc. This study, however, demonstrates that low-cost innovation capabilities are profoundly influenced by the structuring of institutions, particularly the public-science system. The analysis in this paper is structured around innovation in rechargeable batteries in China and point-of-use water purification in India, drawing upon strategies at the Chinese firm BYD and Indian firm Tata, respectively. Both the cases illustrate that diffusion-oriented policies and weak university–industry links played a critical role in firms low-cost ‘incremental’ innovations. However, as regards ‘pre-competitive’ research conducted in the public-science system, with the potential for better performing ‘radical’ technologies at lower costs, the current structure of institutions and firms strategies does not encourage firms to appropriate value from them into innovative output. This has important implications for both firms and policy makers in scaling-up low-cost radical innovations.


2008 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. C06
Author(s):  
Stefano Sandrelli

Dialogical models in science communication produce effective and satisfactory experiences, also when hard sciences (like astrophysics or cosmology) are concerned. But those efforts to reach the public can be of modest impact since the public is no longer (or not sufficiently) interested in science. The reason of this lack of interest is not that science is an alien topic, but that contemporary science and technology have ceased to offer a convincing model for the human progress.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 205630512098105
Author(s):  
José van Dijck ◽  
Donya Alinead

This article examines the role of social media dynamics in the public exchange of information between scientists (experts), government (policy-makers), mass media (journalists), and citizens (nonexperts) during the first 4 months after the Covid-19 outbreak in the Netherlands. Over the past decade, the institutional model of science communication, based on linear vectors of information flows between institutions, has gradually converted into a networked model where social media propel information flows circulating between all actors involved. The question driving our research is, “How are social media deployed to both undermine and enhance public trust in scientific expertise during a health crisis?” Analyzing the public debate during the period of the corona outbreak in the Netherlands, we investigate two stages: the emergency response phase and the “smart exit strategy” phase, discussing how scientific experts, policy-makers, journalists, and citizens appropriate social media logic to steer information and to control the debate. We conclude by outlining the potential risks and benefits of adopting social media dynamics in institutional contexts of science communication.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Weingart ◽  
Marina Joubert ◽  
Bankole Falade

Why do we need to communicate science? Is science, with its highly specialised language and its arcane methods, too distant to be understood by the public? Is it really possible for citizens to participate meaningfully in scientific research projects and debate? Should scientists be mandated to engage with the public to facilitate better understanding of science? How can they best communicate their special knowledge to be intelligible? These and a plethora of related questions are being raised by researchers and politicians alike as they have become convinced that science and society need to draw nearer to one another. Once the persuasion took hold that science should open up to the public and these questions were raised, it became clear that coming up with satisfactory answers would be a complex challenge. The inaccessibility of scientific language and methods, due to ever increasing specialisation, is at the base of its very success. Thus, translating specialised knowledge to become understandable, interesting and relevant to various publics creates particular perils. This is exacerbated by the ongoing disruption of the public discourse through the digitisation of communication platforms. For example, the availability of medical knowledge on the internet and the immense opportunities to inform oneself about health risks via social media are undermined by the manipulable nature of this technology that does not allow its users to distinguish between credible content and misinformation. In countries around the world, scientists, policy-makers and the public have high hopes for science communication: that it may elevate its populations educationally, that it may raise the level of sound decision-making for people in their daily lives, and that it may contribute to innovation and economic well-being. This collection of current reflections gives an insight into the issues that have to be addressed by research to reach these noble goals, for South Africa and by South Africans in particular.


2010 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. A02
Author(s):  
Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen

This article sums up key results of a web-based questionnaire survey targeting the members of the Danish Science Journalists' Association. The association includes not only science journalists but also other types of science communicators. The survey shows that science communicators have a nuanced and multidimensional view on science communication, science, and technology. Science communicators are thus more than the "mountain guides" of science, as a recent definition describes it. The survey respondents are not just interested in helping the public at large to a wider recognition of scientific knowledge, but also want to contribute to democratic debate and social legitimisation of science and technology. The respondents exhibit a certain amount of optimism in relation to science and technology, yet also take a sceptical stance when confronted with overly positive statements regarding science and technology. Finally they have a predominantly social constructivist perception of science and technology when it comes to external relations to society, while they lean towards a hypothetical-deductive science understanding when it concerns the internal dynamics of science


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document