Filter by keyword: Bridging research, practice and teaching

The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the available research on the relationship between research and practice in the field of science communication, identifying barriers and solutions to their disconnect. This scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Results indicate that the main barrier is the inefficient communication between the two domains, and that the main solution lies in changing some modus operandi in science communication. In conclusion, this scoping review provides novel insights to build bridges between research and practice for the advancement of science communication.

Involving school students in authentic research beyond their school learning means creating participatory, out-of-school opportunities related to research processes, giving them a voice in the applied format of science engagement. Important for such endeavours is a group of people we identify as “enablers”. Based on insights from two long-term and large-scale science engagement initiatives in Germany (the Darwin Day science outreach and the Plastic Pirates citizen science program), we identified four principal work tasks of enablers. They are described as (i) aligning the needs, expectations and goals of involved participants, (ii) translating differing conceptions about science into shared visions, (iii) guiding the design of the initiative through educational theory, and (iv) evaluating the success of the out-of-school science engagement initiative. We further suggest that self-awareness of being an enabler, working at the interface of the research and education sphere, is an important prerequisite to successfully collaborate with participants.

Coordinated attempts to promote systematic approaches to the design and evaluation of science communication efforts have generally lagged behind the proliferation and diversification of those efforts. To address this, we founded the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science of Science Communication Scientific Interest Group (SciOSciComm-SIG) and undertook a mixed-methods survey-based analysis of the group one year after its founding. Respondents indicated ongoing interest and some participation in public-facing science communication while identifying specific barriers, and praised the role of the SIG in expanding access to information about evidence-based practices.

The mitigation of the climate crisis demands effective communication strategies. Transforming food systems plays a key role in climate protection, not only by changing eating habits, but also by preventing food waste. While workplaces are commonly used for health promotion activities, they are a rare setting for science communication. This practice insight targets individual food waste reduction through a workshop at the workplace, including a lunch from rescued food, documentary screening, discussion, and expert presentation. It aimed to enhance participants’ self-efficacy and intention to reduce food waste. The effectiveness of the screening was tested experimentally by evaluating the effects of positive and negative framing. Exposure to negative framing was associated with higher intensity in negative affect, whereas positive framing appeared to be associated with higher self-efficacy. Furthermore, this practice insight provides strategies to foster science communication in workplaces.

Basic research underpins the innovations that power the global economy and shape society. It is the focus of scientific investment for both The Kavli Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. Yet it has been rare to see basic research command much attention, practice, or scholarship in science communication. In December 2020, we launched the Science Public Engagement Partnership, or SciPEP, a limited term public-private partnership, to dive into basic science communication headlong. Our work through SciPEP has led to new insights about audiences’ relationship to basic science, as well as the needs and interests of those who communicate basic research. We see a path forward that involves forging more partnerships between scholars who study science communication and practitioners of basic science communication.

This essay highlights the unique challenges that basic scientists may face when trying to identify goals for their engagement efforts. We propose that the difference between basic and applied science, at least when it comes to communication, is primarily about the degree to which scientists can identify audience-specific behavioral goals for their communication efforts. To support our thesis, we provide data from recent survey projects that highlight the degree to which applied and basic scientists have different views about behavioral goals for their communications. We ultimately suggest that basic scientists may need additional help choosing goals and that applied scientists may have more opportunities for focused impact whereas the impact of engagement by basic scientists may be more broad-based.

In this Practice Insight, we consider challenges associated with dialogue-based public engagement with discovery science, related to a focus on application, the need for short-term policy impact, and the lack of conceptual attention to dialogue. We consider potential responses to these through our initial evaluation of The Hopes and Fears Lab engagement project. We suggest the potential value of foregrounding emotional connections with science for both researchers and members of the public, and the need for as much attention to be paid to the preparatory work and settings for dialogue as to the dialogue itself.

Mainstream science communication has struggled to drive sustainability changes. We experimented with arts-based methods in a workshop series that sought to co-create new methods and formats for sustainability science communication with communicators, artists, scientists, and policy-makers. Here, we describe how we used Hartmut Rosa’s notion of resonance to interrogate our experiences, prompted by the workshops and the artwork produced in them. We show how the elements of resonance: affection, emotion, transformation and uncontrollability, fundamentally reshaped the workshops in constructive ways that we could not have predicted. We conclude by drawing out three insights for science communication practice.

The annual conference of the Science Communication Division of the German Communication Association (DGPuK) was held in Zurich, Switzerland, from 5–7 June 2024. The conference attracted around 125 researchers and science communication practitioners from Europe and beyond. In this review, I provide an overview of the conference and discuss some of the challenges for researching AI in science communication as well as for science communication practice.

Science communication is a thriving field that is vitally important to confront and overcome current societal challenges. To make science communication effective, science communication research and practice need to come together and share knowledge and experiences. However, their collaboration is hampered by a variety of obstacles on both sides, ranging from lack of time to lack of incentives and awareness. In this Special Issue we give space to authors from a wide range of backgrounds to reflect on the relationship between science communication research and practice and inspire the field with their insights and learnings.