Filter by keyword: History of public communication of science

This editorial introduces the JCOM special issue on “Transitions in Science Communication: Continuity and Change”. The issue positions continuity and change within four historical processes that have shaped the development of the field: institutionalisation, professionalisation, internationalisation, and diversification. Within these broad field-shaping processes, the issue seeks to capture moments of transition in science communication by featuring selected contributions to the 2025 conference of the Global Network for the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST). The special issue combines three genres of contributions: research articles, practice insights, and an invited essay. Across these different contributions, the issue captures three types of transitions, focussed on agendas, approaches, and voices. It illustrates ongoing transitions within the institutions of science communication and transitions in professional roles and institutional responsibilities. It features contributions that show how the processes of internationalisation and diversification lead to new agendas, new approaches, and, crucially, new voices that can take science communication in new directions.

Comunicar la ciencia en Iberoamérica: un sobrevuelo por la región is the first book-length, regionally authored history of science communication across twelve Ibero-American countries, published to mark the 35th anniversary of RedPOP. Written by practitioners and researchers from within the field, it traces how science communication has developed, and often survived, across vastly different political landscapes, from colonial-era natural history museums to today's social media ecosystems. Particularly striking is how several chapters frame science communication not just as public education but as a form of cultural resistance and democratic resilience. The book has geographical and thematic gaps, but it fills a long-overdue space in the literature and should be on every science communicator's shelf.

Authoritarian populism as a political system is on the global rise. In (what was) Bolsonaro's Brazil, Orbán's Hungary, or Trump's U.S., it yielded or yields a communicative ecosystem loosening ties with truthfulness and challenging a common ground that science has epistemic authority. In our paper we argue that the declining role of truth as a compass in public discourse and decision-making notable in what were seen as stable democracies poses challenges for the way we do science communication and how we do it on a very fundamental level. We suggest there is a need to reconsider assumptions about “good science communication”, and we suggest that science communication should not ignore the fact that both knowledge and communication are inescapably intertwined with power. Specifically, the power play here is about epistemic authority, sometimes even aspired dominance: who gets to have a say over what is considered knowledge? Importantly, this power play is not, in the current environment, being played collaboratively; it is competitive. “How to communicate science” is not the main issue for communicators anymore, but how to create a communicative environment where people listen at all and might consider a scientifically based argument without, from the onset, dismissing it as “woke”, or “unfree”. In this paper, we argue that science communicators should factor in the strategic interactions that inherently exist in the communicative ecosystem. As a framework to help communicators to analyze these interactions and develop decision-making options, we draw on game theory, a branch of rational choice theory that studies strategic interactions where outcomes depend on the choices of all actors involved. Following this logic, we argue that science communication as a field and set of practices could be empowered by using game theory, and we spell out what this might mean.

In an age of populism, rising authoritarianism and far-right movements that often go hand-in-hand with questioning of scientific knowledge, science communication is challenged to respond. How to foster dialogue and inclusion oriented interaction with publics and stakeholders when powerful people and institutions deny science, or if interlocutors don't share the assumption that science yields valid knowledge? In this commentary set, researchers of science communication analyse the current challenges and suggest answers from different perspectives, trying to brush against the grain in order to explore inspiring ideas. Their suggestions, in a nutshell: (1) Good science communication without a fundamental change in the platform logics of social media platforms will not be possible, and science communicators should fight for a better digital ecosystem. (2) Science communication that is blind to political power play will not be strong enough for rising the voice of science in a power world. (3) Governments need to invest in a resilient and reliable way of communicating in risk and crisis situations, because otherwise science and science communication lose trust. (4) Science communication as a democratic practice could create opportunities for participation in decision processes in order to support and strengthen democracy. (5) Instead of persuading the denialists of science, science communication could adopt values connected with science and empower people to reach their goals with the help of scientific knowledge and practices. (6) Science communication might embrace the performative power of communication in order to persist in a post-truth world. The commentary set highlights crucial aspects of what we see as a communication challenge for dialogue and inclusion oriented science communication and it aims at opening up discussion and debate.

The symposium occurred from 17–19 October 2024 in Suzhou, China, a city famous for its long history and rich culture and often called “the heaven on Earth”. The 230 delegates from 26 countries spent two insightful days immersed in the world of science communication. The event highlighted that Chinese policymakers and research leaders are taking science communication and science literacy seriously. In his opening speech, Professor Yanhao Xu, Vice Chairman of the National Education, Science, Health and Sports Committee, recalled that China has a special law on science popularisation that recognises science communication as of equal importance to technological innovation. This also means that suitable communication activities must accompany every major Chinese scientific initiative.

Scientific temper, a mainstay in Indian science policies and science communication/education programmes, conceptualises citizens as scientifically conscious and powerful agents that approach societal issues with a rational and critical mind rather than taking refuge in religious, superstitious and pseudoscientific worldviews. Our essay provides a brief history of this term and compares it with existing science communication models to demonstrate how, despite sharing commonalities, it is distinct from models like deficit, dialogue, and participation. We elucidate how scientific temper fosters critical features like a process-oriented approach, reflexivity, democratisation of scientific expertise and being a potential tool for decolonisation. Lastly, we propose scientific temper as an alternate framework for democratising knowledge-making and -sharing, building an engaged deliberative citizenry, and studying science-society relationships overall.

“Race and Socio-Cultural Inclusion in Science Communication”, edited by Elizabeth Rasekoala, challenges Eurocentric hegemony and advocates for inclusivity in science communication. Through insightful contributions from diverse authors, it calls for action to decolonise and transform science communication.

Since the invention of functional brain imaging in the early 1990s, this instrumentally and computationally expensive methodology has captured our interests in visualizing the working mind, especially that of super-ageing brains. Because neuroimaging research is costly, various communication strategies are deployed to increase its visibility and fundraising success. Through a historical perspective on the representation of healthy ageing in the media, we examine the methods of communication (media logic) and the cultural interdependencies between media, research institutions, and health funding politics (mediatization), which magnify the profile of brain imaging in advancing the science of healthy ageing. Examples of hyped messaging about healthy-ageing brains underline the risk of visual ageism — a prejudiced and stereotypical view of what a good or bad older brain looks like. We argue that hyped mediatization can alienate older adults from participating in a line of research that might stigmatize them.

The Covid-19 pandemic escalated demand for scientific explanations and guidance, creating opportunities for scientists to become publicly visible. In this study, we compared characteristics of visible scientists during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic (January to December 2020) across 16 countries. We find that the scientists who became visible largely matched socio-cultural criteria that have characterised visible scientists in the past (e.g., age, gender, credibility, public image, involvement in controversies). However, there were limited tendencies that scientists commented outside their areas of expertise. We conclude that the unusual circumstances created by Covid-19 did not change the phenomenon of visible scientists in significant ways.

Anniversaries provide great opportunities to celebrate achievements, to look into the future, and to do some self-reflection. I have the honour of doing so in a specific field of science communication that I’m familiar with: the field of citizen science communication, especially with a European focus. I hope this commentary prompts others who are experts in their regions of the world to also reflect on the past and the future for this growing field.