Communicating about environmental risks requires understanding and addressing stakeholder needs, perspectives, and anticipated uses for communication products and decision-support tools. This paper demonstrates how long-term dialogue between scientists and stakeholders can be facilitated by repeated stakeholder focus groups. We describe a dialogic process for developing science-based decision-support tools as part of a larger sea level rise research project in the Gulf of Mexico. We demonstrate how focus groups can be used effectively in tool development, discuss how stakeholders plan to use
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Denise DeLormeSonia StephensScott HagenMatthew Bilskie
World’s Fairs and scientific-technological theme parks have been propitious places for the communication of science and technology through modernity. This work addresses the issue of the construction of public discourse about the future within these sites, as well as the changing role attributed to science and technology as mediators in the relationships between nature and society. In both fairs and parks, science and technology play a leading role in the construction of the discourse about the desirable and achievable future. The practices of science communication and technology have specific
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Susana Herrera-LimaDaniela Martin Segura
The National Center for Science Education’s Science Booster Club Program piloted a no-conflict approach to free, informal science activities focused on climate change or evolution, holding 64 community events at two sites over the course of 15 months, engaging with more than 70,000 participants. In the participating communities science literacy increased over time as did community engagement as measured by local financial support, requests for programming, and event attendance.
“Science crowdfunding” is a research funding system in which members of the public make small financial contributions towards a research project via the Internet. We compared the more common research process involving public research funding with science crowdfunding. In the former, academic-peer communities review the research carried out whereas the Crowd Community, an aggregation of backers, carries out this function in the latter. In this paper, we propose that science crowdfunding can be successfully used to generate “crowd-supported science” by means of this Crowd Community.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Yuko IkkataiEuan McKayHiromi Yokoyama
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
The first Japan Scicom Forum in Tokyo on April 20, 2018 gathered nearly 120 attendees to discuss the growing need and demand for English-language science communication in Japan and Asia. Keynotes and workshops addressed both the philosophy and motivations for scicomm in Japan and also the best practices for international outreach. Global science communication has reached a critical mass in Japan but securing sustainable funding, integrating the community and retaining momentum present ongoing challenges. As an online community and (hopefully) a recurring event, Japan Scicom Forum will foster a
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Ayumi KosoAmanda Alvarez
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
There are strong arguments for and against having either a dedicated funding scheme for science communication in the next European Framework Programme, or mainstreaming upstream engagement across all disciplines. How could both approaches be combined? The success of either will depend on its operationalisation.
We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens’ meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming
For decades the idea that scientists, policy makers and industry know best in research and innovation has been convincingly challenged. The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation [RRI] combines various strands of critique and takes up the idea that research and innovation need to be democratized and must engage with the public in order to serve the public. The proposed future EU research funding framework programme, Horizon Europe, excludes a specific program line on research in RRI. We propose a number of steps the European Parliament should take to institutionalize RRI in Horizon
With “Horizon Europe”, the European Commission sets out the framework for research and innovation in Europe over the next seven years. The proposal outlines the contours of an innovative science policy that is open and responsive to societal needs, and where societal actors jointly undertake missions to discover sustainable solutions to present-day and future challenges. In our commentary we point to a number of modifications needed to strengthen the cross-cutting implementation of activities for societal engagement and responsible research and innovation.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Bjørn BedstedLise BitschLars KlüverRasmus Øjvind NielsenMarie Louise Jørgensen
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is gaining momentum worldwide and is envisaged as a needed tool to properly govern controversial innovative technology (i.e. genome editing, AI). Europe is considered a leader in fostering such approach, notably through its institutionalization. Even so, the future of European Research and Innovation (R&I) seems to be designed without a central role for RRI. After long effort and so much public EU money to support projects to ground RRI principles and practices in key contexts for the flourishing of science and technology in Europe, such as the
At the beginning of May, 2018, the European Commission has presented its proposal for Horizon Europe, the framework programme which defines priorities and budget distribution for the future of European Research and Innovation (2021–2027). The announcement has raised concerns within the community of stakeholders engaged in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), a democratization process leading to connecting science to the values and interests of European citizens by mean of participatory processes. Through this flash commentary we aim at providing a wide range of arguments, as well as
Since the early 1990s, there has been a considerable increase in the number of scientific studies on science communication, and this increase has been accompanied by a diversification of the research field. This study focuses on one aspect of this development: it analyses how citation network structures within the field have developed over time, and whether science communication research shows signs of becoming a research field or a discipline in its own right. Employing a co-citation analysis of scholarly publications published between 1996 and 2015, it assesses to what extent a coherent