This letter reflects on how the role of science in society evolved in 2016. While there were plenty of groundbreaking scientific discoveries, the shifting political landscape cultivated a tempestuous relationship between science and society. We discuss these developments and the potential role of the science communication community in political activism.
The scientific community has been under increasing pressure from policymakers and the public to explain how research contributes to the public good. The community has emphasized two distinct approaches to explaining its operations and value. The first is the use of narratives that can make the work of science more accessible and engaging to nonscientists. The other is the use of new data mining and analysis methods to document quantitatively the complex paths by which research progresses and eventually contributes to a variety of societal goals. While both of these approaches have proved useful, the goal of this workshop is to explore ways that they might be combined into a hybrid approach that will be even more effective.
This workshop will assemble experts in the narrative and data-driven science communication approaches with leading science researchers to discuss how these various perspectives can be merged to define a template for a type of communication that encompasses the appeal of narrative, the rigor of new analytic data, and the understanding of how science works in practice.
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Kevin Finneran
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
How should we convey science—both its findings and its value to society—to the many members of the public who lack either scientific training or intense interest in scientific progress? In October 2016 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop to explore ways of better presenting science—both specific findings and the processes of discovering and confirming—to the public. Participants discussed ways to develop data-enriched narratives that communicate to the public and policy makers in an engaging and rigorous way the work of basic research. They also
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
The Zoo and Aquarium Action Research Collaborative (ZAARC) was an NSF-funded project (DRL-1114335) involving four zoos and two aquariums, plus informal science education researchers from TERC (a non-profit educational research and development company in Cambridge, MA), Oregon State University and California State University, Long Beach. The goal of ZAARC was to investigate how action research might be carried out by educators in zoos and aquariums, and how its implementation would impact both the individual practitioners and their institutions.
Zoo and Aquarium Research Collaborative (ZAARC) is a NSF-funded research project by TERC and Oregon State University (co-PI’s Andee Rubin and John Falk) that is exploring a collaborative model for action research as a form of professional development for zoo and aquarium educators. Over the past three years, ZAARC has engaged education staff from six zoos and aquariums from across the country in learning about and conducting action research pertinent to their institutions. Dr. Cynthia Char of Char Associates, an independent consulting firm specializing in program evaluation, has been a member
The most important consideration in evaluating chemistry outreach efforts is how to best use the evaluation to serve project needs. Evaluation should be about making programs more effective—at communicating ideas, changing attitudes, inspiring action, or reaching wider audiences, for example. A well-conducted evaluation typically contributes to the quality of a project by helping its leaders better define their goals, identify important milestones and indicators of success, and use evidence to support ongoing improvements. At its best, evaluation is an integral part of project design and
The National Research Council’s (NRC) Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST) and Board on Science Education (BOSE) received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a framework for effective chemistry communication, outreach, and education in informal settings, with the ultimate goal of increasing the effectiveness of such efforts in engaging the public with chemistry. BCST and BOSE are assembling a committee of experts to execute this work. To support their efforts, BCST and BOSE also commissioned this landscape study, which serves as background for the
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Grunwald Associates LLC
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This article provides a brief synopsis of the second Science of Science Communication Sackler Colloquim, held September 23-25, 2013 at the National Academy of Sciences. It presents summaries and links to relevant research that informed the meeting.
Science belongs everywhere. Although informal science learning typically takes place in the bright spots of society—our museums, botanical gardens, and science centers—some science educators are creating programs for individuals who live in the darker parts of our communities, such as prisons. Over 2 million people are in prison in the United States, with a national recidivism level of over 70%. Yet men and women who are incarcerated can also participate in science learning and contribute to conservation projects.
Many people believe that both public policy and personal action would improve with better access to “reliable knowledge about the natural world” (that thing that we often call science). Many of those people participate in science education and science communication. And yet, both as areas of practice and as objects of academic inquiry, science education and science communication have until recently remained remarkably distinct. Why, and what resources do the articles in this special issue of JRST give us for bringing together both the fields of practice and the fields of inquiry?
The fields of science education and science communication share the overarching goal of helping non-experts and non-members of the professional science community develop knowledge of the content and processes of scientific research. However, the specific audiences, methods, and aims employed in the two fields have evolved quite differently and as a result, the two fields rarely share findings and theory. Despite this lack of crosstalk, one theoretical construct—framing—has shown substantial analytic power for researchers in both fields. Specifically, both fields have productively made use of
This study assesses how scientists think about science communication training based on the argument that such training represents an important tool in improving the quality of interactions between scientists and the public. It specifically focuses on training related to five goals, including views about training to make science messages understandable, as well as attitude-focused training meant to build trust and credibility, to demonstrate that one listens to the public, to demonstrate that one cares about the public's views, and to frame messages to resonate with audiences' pre-existing