science communication
Science communication is a subfield of communication studies that entails the communication of scientistsā research findings mostly via intermediaries to policy decision makers, societal groups, and the public as well as the feedback that those groups can provide to the scientific community. This relatively nascent subfield grew out of the need to make the general public more informed and aware of the import of scientific findings to their personal lives and to society at large. This emphasis on making the public aware of the advances in various scientific and technological fields has remained the major goal of the field.
In essence, science communication involves the rendering of expert scientific discourse to the nonexpert public. This rendering can touch upon a number of issues: new scientific findings, scientific debates, and scientific priorities and their impact on political agenda setting and public policy decision-making. It can also involve discussions of principles that should guide the crafting of science communication policy, such as openness and transparency. Other concerns include the interplay between scientific and media agenda setting, whether the priorities of what scientists deem important and what journalists consider worth reporting converge, and the implication of science in resolving controversial public policy issues on a national and a global scale.
This entry begins by reviewing models of science communication and then discusses the role of scientists and media outlets and other organizations.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Models of Science Communication and the Role of Scientists
Science communication scholars originally ascribed to a top-down, one-way model of communication. The model was premised on the idea that the expertise resided within the confines of the scientific community and the task at hand was to make the specialized knowledge and technical terminology accessible to the general public. There was a gulf separating the source, the expert scientists, from the receivers, the public, and communication was supposed to eliminate the deficit in the publicās understanding of science. The issue at hand was one of translation, interpreting highly specialized science issues and advances to society at large.
As science communication evolved, the top-down one-way model was superseded by a two-way communication model that conceived of the public not as passive receivers but as active participants, the model of public engagement or conversation. This reformulation of the role of the public acknowledges that new scientific knowledge and the attendant scientifically informed public issues are not solely debated within the confines of the scientific community but are open to interpretation, evaluation, and critique by public officials, interest groups, and informed citizens. For instance, policy makers are required to weigh the scientific evidence of various policy proposals and consider their consequences for the groups impacted by their adoption; universities and research institutes are often asked to demonstrate relevance and provide impact assessment in order to secure funding and wider acceptance for their scientific projects; students and interested individuals have become actively involved in the learning process of scientific subjects through an array of interactive exchanges such as gamification, simulations, role-playing, and project-based approaches that take into consideration the experiences of the participants in the learning process. Aside from the formal settings of legislative committees, expert panels, advisory boards, scientific conferences, class- and laboratory-based teaching, science discussions can take place in more informal face-to face gatherings such as science exhibits, science festivals, science museums, and science cafes where a whole array of people mingle together and exchange views on science topics.
Scientists, as alluded to, are the main source of scientific communication. Scientists present their new approaches, tools, and findings to their colleagues in conferences, symposia, and academic publications. Often times, though, scientists are sought after for comments and interviews by journalists and/or desire to reach wider audiences. The prime driving forces guiding scientistsā participation in public communication activities involve increasing the publicās science literacy level, generating more interest in science, recruiting aspiring teenagers to science, dispelling any fears of doing science, and setting the record straight for any misreporting. In making the leap from interscientific to public communication, scientists must incorporate communication principles and tactics if they intend their interventions to be effective. They must set specific communication objectives, clear their interventions of excess scientific jargon, and tailor their message to targeted audiences.
The Role of Media Outlets, Public Relations Units, and Other Intermediaries
Media and other organizations are important mediators in reporting and broadcasting scientific advances from the scientific community to the public. They are the conveyor belts in the transmission, dissemination, and framing of scientific knowledge as well as bridges facilitating the interface of the scientific community with laypersons, interpreting for nonexperts the significance of scientific advances, and feeding back to the scientists the concerns of policy makers, interest groups, and informed citizens.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
Before considering the role of media outlets and public relations (PR) units as the main actors between scientists and society, it is worth paying some attention to the role of other intermediaries in communicating science. These include professional associations, scientific museums, funding agencies, governmental regulatory agencies, as well as science popularizers and science fiction writers. Professional associations and societies act as springboards for the dissemination of scientific research findings to various audiences in a manner that is intelligible to them, draft position papers and short briefs outlining courses of action and recommendations for the policy makers, and host events promoting science and its value to society. Museums are ideally suited as spaces for public engagement, providing laypersons with first-hand experience of scientific discoveries. Public and private funding agencies use their funding power to set priorities and funnel scientific research accordingly in meeting specific targets and addressing problems in need of urgent attention. Governmental regulatory agencies ensure that policy decisions are based on sound scientific assessments while at the same time taking into account ethical, legal, and social considerations to safeguard the well-being of communities. Science popularizers and science fiction writers are authors of various kinds who derive their inspiration from scientific advances and convey through storytelling groundbreaking scientific ideas to an eagerly awaiting reading public.
The circulation of scientific noteworthy information to a wider public forms part of the institutional self-promotion activities in which PR and media relations units in universities, research institutes, and laboratories engage. Since the early 2000s, institutions engaged in knowledge production have been upgrading their PR and communication function, with PR professionals serving as conduits of scientific information to journalists by packaging and framing the content material into a ready-made format for publication. Scientific institutions stand to benefit from the rewards that in-house PR professionals provide: positive media exposure, reputation enhancement, public legitimacy, public support for scientific endeavors, increased visibility and easier access to policy makers, and more research funding opportunities. As is evident in the business, political, and professional spheres, promotional activities undertaken by PR professionals have had a tremendous impact on the mediaās coverage of science, often resulting in in-depth, evidence-based, and balanced reporting.
Traditional mass media outlets have for some time been at the forefront of disseminating science information to nonexpert audiences. Science communication still relies on media channels such as newspapers, periodicals, radio, and television. Science journalists occupy a central role in these media outlets, as they mediate the relationship between scientists and scientific institutions on the one hand and societal groups and indefinite audiences on the other hand.
In relation to the suppliers of scientific contentāscientists and scientific institutionsāscience journalists act as gatekeepers. The task of identifying and selecting the appropriate scientific information intended for public consumption and reflection is a daunting if not impossible task confronted by science journalists, given that today more than 1 million scientific reports are published every year. To circumscribe and make more manageable the selection process, science journalists adopt media logic criteria such as newsworthiness, novelty, potential for controversy, and human interest. Moreover, they may use additional mechanisms such as seeking out prominent scientists for comments or interviews and limiting their sources to a few prestigious scientific journals (e.g., Science, Nature). In selecting what scientific content is appropriate for media coverage, science journalists engage in media agenda setting, choosing which content will be featured in the news. In producing scientific news stories, science journalists engage in framing, choosing what to emphasize, and/or downplay in the coverage of an issue or how to arrange and present the story to the public. Most traditional mass media outlets ascribe to the one-way dissemination model of science communication.
The advent of digital media outlets is transforming the way communication is being conducted in all spheres of life, including science communication. The digital media landscape includes web-based news media, websites of scientific institutions and other intermediaries, blogs, and social media platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). Digital media afford the possibility of narrowcasting scientific information to the public with a genuine interest in science and hold the promise of facilitating public engagement through the interactivity feature that allows users to applaud, comment, debate, and contest new scientific findings. Digital media give more prominence to the role of scientists and PR professionals who can directly appeal to the public, circumventing the gatekeeping function that science journalists performed.
To summarize, science communication is a new subfield of mass communication. Its scope and activities can be described along three interrelated interfaces: the scientist/science spokespersonāscience journalist interface whereby scientists and PR professionals act as sources of scientific information; the science journalistānonexpert public interface whereby media outlets are the prime disseminators of scientific information to the public; and the scienceāsociety interface, whereby scientists and science spokespersons interact with the public groups exhibiting an interest in science.
The original version of this article was published by SAGE Publications in The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.