THE DESTINY OF VISUALIZATIONS IN PUBLIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: BETWEEN ACTION AND REPRESENTATION

Научные визуализации рассматриваются в трех контекстах. Первый контекст – визуального поворота, в ходе которого подчеркивается внимание к двойственной роли образов в общественных взаимодействиях: как представлений и как действующих агентов. Второй контекст – кризиса научных репрезентаций, выходом из которого оказывается внимание к научным визуализациям, связывающим, благодаря своему чувственному характеру, теорию и реальность. Третий контекст – публичной научной коммуникации, в которой визуализации активно действуют, изменяя отношения между общественными субъектами, а также репрезентируют важную научную информацию. На переходе от второго контекста к третьему формируется интересующая автора коллизия судьбы научных визуализаций, которые в публичной научной коммуникации оказываются одновременно и научными, и политическими объектами, представляющими научные исследования и включающимися в процессы принятия общественно значимых решений. В профессиональной научной коммуникации двусмысленный характер научных визуализаций оказывается конструктивным. Они существуют одновременно и как представления, отсылающие к реальности, и как действия, собирающие в единство научное сообщество. Однако в публичной научной коммуникации сборка сообщества посредством научных визуализаций оказывается не менее значимой, но более проблематичной, поскольку интересы участвующих во взаимодействии субъектов различны, соответственно, утрачивается возможность однозначного восприятия визуализаций. Тем не менее визуализации в публичной научной коммуникации действуют достаточно эффективно, способствуя распространению научной грамотности в процессах популяризации, вовлечению граждан в управление и принятие политически значимых решений. При этом возникают условия, препятствующие удержанию конструктивной двусмысленности визуализаций. В качестве таких условий в статье рассматриваются цифровые посредники коммуникации, усиливающие действенный характер визуализаций, а также неопределенность как предмет познания современной науки «пост-нормальной эпохи», который сложно репрезентировать посредством образов. В итоге возникает ситуация уклонения к признанию действенности визуализации в ущерб ее репрезентативной функции и, как следствие, принесения научной объективной стороны визуализаций в жертву их политической и даже идеологической составляющей. В заключение автор предлагает выход из этой ситуации, способствующий удержанию необходимой двойственности визуализаций в публичной научной коммуникации. The article discusses scientific visualizations in three contexts. The context of the visual turn emphasizes attention to the ambiguous character of images in social interactions – as representations and as agents. The context of the crisis of scientific representations concerns scientific visualizations, which are the way out of it due to their linking of theory and reality. The context of public science communication demonstrates visualizations as activity changing the relationship between public actors and as representation of important scientific information. In the transition from the second context to the third, the author finds the collision of the destiny of scientific visualizations. Visualizations in public science communication turn out to be both scientific and political objects that represent scientific research and take part in the processes of decision-making. In professional science communication, the ambiguous nature of scientific visualizations turns out to be constructive. Scientific visualizations exist simultaneously as representations referring to reality and as actions that bring together the scientific community. However, in public science communication, the assembly of a community through scientific visualizations turns out to be no less significant, but more problematic since the interests of the subjects participating in the interaction are different. Nevertheless, visualizations in public science communication work quite effectively, contributing to the dissemination of scientific literacy in the popularization and to the involvement of citizens in decision-making. In this case, conditions arise that prevent the retention of the constructive ambiguity of visualizations. As such conditions, the author examines the emerging digital mediators of communication that enhance the activities of visualizations, as well as uncertainty as a subject of “post-normal” science, which is difficult to represent through images. In conclusion, the author proposes a way out of this situation, contributing to the retention of the necessary ambiguity of visualizations in public science communication.

Evaluating the short-term and long-term impact of an interactive science show

Science shows as a medium for communicating science are used widely across the UK, yet there is little literature about the long-term impact they may have. This longitudinal study looks at the short-term and long-term impact of the science show Music to Your Ears, which was initially performed throughout the UK on behalf of the Institute of Physics in 2002, and which has since been offered at schools and events through the enterprise Science Made Simple. The impact was measured using the immediate reaction to the show, the number (and type) of demonstrations (demos) recalled over the long term, and the applied use of any memories from the show. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using questionnaires immediately after the show and focus groups held two and a half years later. To enrich the data, and minimize bias, interviews with professional science presenters were also included in the data analysis. Data from the questionnaires were used to develop a framework of five demonstration categories to describe their essence, or main purpose. The categories used in this study were: curiosity (C), human (H), analogy (A), mechanics (M) and phenomena (P). It was found that even after two and a half years, almost 25 per cent of demos from the show could be recalled without prompting. When prompted with verbal and visual clues, over 50 per cent of the demos from the show could be recalled by the group tested. In addition, around 9 per cent of the demos were recalled and related to an alternative context to the show, suggesting that some cognitive processing may have happened with the most memorable elements of the show. The ‘curiosity’ type of demo was found to be the most memorable in both the short term and long term.

Mary Proctor: An astronomical popularizer in the shadows

The popularizer of astronomy Mary Proctor was well known in her days but has been little remembered since. A prominent lecturer and author, Proctor was trained in the craft of science writing by her father, Richard Proctor. She ‘held the very first place in the profession as a woman’ and promoted the role of women in science throughout her career. Her life illuminates many themes. Mary Proctor spanned the period between entrepreneurial science popularizers and professional science communicators. I suggest that one of her most important legacies is as an early pioneer of the practices of science journalism in the early twentieth century when the relations between science and society were in flux. Yet her legacy has been largely overlooked. A study of Proctor's life reveals multiple interests, diverse opportunities and the way that people are differently remembered.

Understand Journalists

Journalists and scientists share such traits as curiosity and a search for the truth, but they also differ. While a scientist is not concerned with the impact their research has, journalists do and come in a bora spectrum, from totally inexperienced to professional science writers. However, both types work for their readers and viewers, not scientists; like to tell great stories; prefer conclusions to caveats; and work in a professional pressure cooker. They concentrate on covering papers published in journals, even though that research is tentative. Few journalists can do “enterprise reporting,” in which they cover the uncertainties, contradictions, controversies, and complexities of a topic. While they care about accuracy, they are not schooled in statistics. They also emphasize positive discoveries, rather than null findings, and they may engage in “false balance,” covering two sides of a story, even though one is invalid. They need a news peg, work on tight deadlines, and like visuals and multimedia to enhance their stories.

‘Weird and fantastic realism’: Science and Stories in the Work of Grant Allen

Grant Allen (1848-1899) was a well-known populariser of natural history who was widely recognised for his extensive knowledge of science and his ability to refashion complex ideas for general audiences. But his status as a popular writer, coupled with a lack of formal training, placed him at the margins of professional science and impeded his serious scientific ambitions. Although Allen tended to portray fiction-writing as an economic necessity, both contemporary and recent critics have noted stylistic innovations that place him within germinal popular genres of the fin de siècle. This paper aims to show that Allen’s contributions to late-Victorian popular literature derive in part from his negotiation of fiction and non-fiction genres. Focusing particularly on his experiments with the short story, it considers how and to what extent he distinguished scientific from literary writing, while revealing his views on plausibility in fiction to be more complex than is typically recognised. Little-studied reviews of Allen’s popular fiction suggest the wider contemporary impact of his experimentations. That critics recognised his style as unconventional endorses a reappraisal of his place within developments in late-Victorian popular literature.

Bringing back the debate on mediated and unmediated science communication: the public's perspective

When analysing the actors of the science communication ecosystem, scholarly research has focused on the perceptions and attitudes of scientists, science journalists, and science communicators. How the public envisages the roles of science producers and mediators is mostly uncharted territory. We address this gap, by examining the results of a public consultation in Portugal concerning science communication. We show that the public demonstrates a clear preference for science communication performed by scientists, over journalists, although credibility and trust depend on multiple factors. We also ascertain that professional science communicators are mostly invisible, though the public recognises the value of `translators'.

5 reasons why research projects should communicate their science

<p><strong>1. Science communication is relevant when it comes to getting a project approved.</strong> This applies not only to nationally funded research projects, but also to science within the Horizon Europe framework. A solid communication concept is not only a great advantage when it comes to project approval. Science communication can also increase the impact within the research community.</p><p><strong>2. Science communication increases the impact of a project.</strong> The impact of a project is primarily assessed on the basis of publications in scientific journals. Scientists also read newspapers and watch television - and surf the Internet. Without the appealing presentation of research results, they would not necessarily become aware of studies outside their own specialist area. More and more researchers are on social networks such as Twitter and find out about new articles via their timeline. So thanks to social media, it's becoming easier to share publications online. </p><p><strong>3. Science communication improves collaboration within a project.</strong> A positive side effect: especially in large collaborative projects in which researchers are involved in very different disciplines, the project partners can communicate better if the different research approaches and goals are flanked by professional science communication. In their interview study “What do scientists gain from science communication?”, science communication scientists from the University of Münster asked 75 scientists from two interdisciplinary research networks and found that science communication stimulates the exchange between colleagues, imparts knowledge about research in other disciplines, provides an overview of research in the network and promotes the establishment of personal contacts among colleagues.</p><p><strong>4</strong>. Thanks to science communication, <strong>research reaches people outside of the science community</strong>. The more clearly presented, the more interest is aroused. But we hardly need to explain that to you as the guests of this session. The communication of scientific results on the effects of plastic in the ocean caused the largely invisible phenomenon of plastic littering has now received enormous public attention and is currently perceived as one of the greatest threats to the marine environment. Many research projects that want to initiate societal change can only achieve their goals with public relations.</p><p><strong>5</strong>. Often the decisive factor: <strong>there is funding for science communication</strong>. In everyday science, this is a crucial prerequisite for science communication to take place. Research projects can acquire additional resources and hire professional science communicators to support outreach. Therefore, the scientists can concentrate on their research. The talk will include a brief overview of the funding opportunities that are available for science communication in the EU.</p>

A Deep Look at the Benefits of Behind-the-Scenes Content: A Scientific Investigation into Seeing the Producers of KQED's Nature Series at Work

This report describes the results of an ongoing research program aimed at promoting science-informed reporting of science media, news and insights. Project sponsors include the National Science Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The report was prepared for internal use by the project team members, who include both professional science communicators affiliated with KQED, a public media outlet located in San Francisco, California; and empirical researchers affiliated with Texas Tech University College of Media & Communication. The report is being publicly disseminated not only to share knowledge generated by the team’s initial research but also to improve comprehension of how collaborative exchange between researchers and practitioners can promote genuine evidence-based methods of science communication.