SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ROADMAP NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2-3, 2000 IRVINE,...

SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS

RESEARCH ROADMAP

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEETING

FEBRUARY 2-3, 2000

IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

RICK E. BORCHELT

SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

[email protected]

Research Roadmap for the Communication of Science and Technology in the 21st Century (R2)

• Initially chartered by NASA/George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

• 3-year charter beginning in 1998

• Focus 1: Set a research agenda for S&T communication

• Focus 2: Identify and articulate “best practices” in public communication of S&T from (mostly U.S.) research institutions

• NASA funding stream intermittent to nonexistent

Science Communication Research

• Reviewed the existing literature

• Noted considerable disconnect between science communication literature, diffusion of innovation literature, and health communication literature

• Identified FIVE priority areas for research funding

Science Communication Research -- Funding Priorities

(1) Relationship (if any) between science communication, science literacy, and science advocacy

(2) Understand the interests/behaviors of the consuming publics (audience analysis)

(3)Understand the PIO-researcher-reporter nexus (game theory)

Science Communication Research -- Funding Priorities

(4) Determine common ground between health/behavior communication and science communication per se

(5) Determine common ground with diffusion of innovation/ag extension research efforts

Science Communication:Best Practice

Finding 1

There is no such thing as a “general audience” for S&T communication -- there are many people with many different uses for S&T

information, and many levels of understanding with which to deal.

Science Communcation:Best Practice

Finding 1 (corollaries)• Multiplicity of new media channels makes

mass communication very difficult• Traditional public relations models stress an

outmoded, one-way “mediated” approach• Little focus on building new audiences

rather than serving presumed existing audiences


Finding 2

The scientific community and managers of the science enterprise routinely fail to distinguish between understanding of

science and appreciation for science and its benefits


Finding 2 (corollaries)

• Communication programs that emphasize institutional advancement often are touted as programs that communicate science -- the goals of these two kinds of programs are not necessarily complementary

• Metrics -- where they exist -- are usually reflections of the former, not the latter


Finding 2 (more corollaries)

• Collaboration is essential to the process of science and to effective science communication, but collaboration dilutes institutional advancement goals


Finding 2 (example)

• Communication of failure is essential to public understanding of science, but generally regarded as anathema to institutional advancement


Finding 3

The myriad of audience needs and interests should drive public communication of S&T.

Communication should not be driven by the research enterprise’s desires about what

it believes publics should know.



• Scientists have an obligation to understand publics and their needs if communication is to be effective

• Mutual respect between communicators and scientists (with joint veto over communication products and messages) is essential


Finding 3 (example)

• Case study:

http://science.nasa.gov

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Chief Scientist’sScience CommunicationsWkg. Group

Science CommunicationsWkg. Group Strategy Document

Communicate KnowledgeProcess Team

General Armstrong’sCK Report

New NASA ChiefScientist

NSSTC Established

NASA/MSFC Summer Faculty Fellow

NASA/MSFC Summer Faculty Fellow, InitialScicomm Discussions

Roundtable EstablishedInitial Scicomm Activities

C.A. in Science Communications established, 1.5 Graduate Students, Research, First Research Publications in Scicomm, External Working Group Begins, NASA/MSFC Cited as “Best NASA Practice,” beginning of work for entire Center not just science area.

Webby Award, C.A. in Science Communications, 3 Graduate Students, Sponsored Research, External Working Group Continues, National“Best Practice” conference call for papers, National Scicomm Research Conference planning, Work for other NASA centers, exploration into commercial/industry partnerships. Evaluation of the role of science communications in the NSSTC.

A Brief History of Science Communications at NASA/Marshall

Policy/Guidance

NASA/Marshall Activities and Progress

1993 Science in the Natl. Interest“Federal Agencies will encourage research scientiststo use their research experiences in support of publicunderstanding of science.”

“Federal Agencies will encourage research scientiststo use their research experiences in support of publicunderstanding of science.”

The “Webby” Awards: Class of 1999

PBSOn-line

Yahoo!

Amazon.com

Science@NASAScience@NASA

SmithsonianMagazine

CNN

Ebay.com

Nominated, Non-Winners:

• Scientific American• Wall Street Journal• MSNBC• New York Times• BBC News• Federal Express• Alta-Vista Translator

Nominated, Non-Winners:

• Scientific American• Wall Street Journal• MSNBC• New York Times• BBC News• Federal Express• Alta-Vista Translator


Finding 4

The active involvement of scientists and engineers is critical to the success of

science communication.

Science Communication:Best Practices


• How scientists are integrated into communication will vary with the institution and the interests of the power elite -- there is no cookbook model


Finding 4 (more corollaries)• While science communicators may excel at

communicating products, scientists are best communicators of process (and best practice demands both)

• Communication techniques must be integrated across training in scientific and technical disciplines (i.e., writing across the curriculum initiatives)


Finding 4 (more corollaries)• Rewards and incentives for public

communication by scientists are virtually nonexistent at the institution level.

• Media training for scientists is uneven and often poorly conceptualized. The best kind of media training emphasizes respect for the culture of journalism rather than “quick-fix” abilities to speak to reporters.


Finding 5

Science communicators who can foster mutual respect between science and the

media also are essential to effective public communication of science.



• The mix of science-to-media skills for a science communicator varies with the institution and its objectives

• Access to the institution’s power elite is absolutely critical to success


Finding 5 (more corollaries)

• Successful skills as a science communicator/PIO are best learned through strong mentoring programs and often are institution-specific


Finding 6

The impact of new media and the fragmentation of existing media will have profound impacts on how and with whom

we communicate about science and technology.



• Science communication/public info programs that define success as entrée to the evening news already are dinosaurs -- based on a

1940’s model of information flow.

• The convergence period for transition to new media will occur over the next 5-10 years.


If you remember nothing else from this presentation:

Better public understanding of S&T is a defensible goal in and of itself in a

democratic society, whether or not such familiarity leads to better public advocacy

for funding of research

SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ROADMAP NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2-3, 2000 IRVINE,...

Documents

Transcript of SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ROADMAP NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2-3, 2000 IRVINE,...