Filter by section: Essay

In this essay, we draw on the existing literature to discuss the roles for emotions in science communication. There is a widespread perception that emotions are detrimental to quality, particularly as a threat to the objectivity of science. This paper challenges this view by discussing the potential positive and negative effects of emotions on both the producers and recipients of science communication. Additionally, we outline the motivational and heuristic functions of emotions. Finally, we consider the place and roles for emotions in different models of science communication. The essay aims to support both producers and recipients of science communication in reflecting on their own emotions and the emotions of their counterpart.

A substantial body of empirical research identifies participatory models of science communication as best practice for achieving social, ethical, or governance objectives, particularly where dialogue, inclusion and public influence are central. At the same time, storytelling has emerged as a widely used strategy for engaging audiences with scientific issues, helping audiences make informed decisions, and shaping community attitudes and behaviours regarding science-related topics. Drawing on narrative studies, this essay examines how storytelling contributes to audience engagement through processes such as narrative transportation, simulation, and p-responses. It argues that reading or listening to stories is not a passive activity, and that these forms of audience engagement can be understood as interpretive and affective involvement. Storytelling does not always support participation in the dialogic or co-productive sense (typically associated with participatory science communication), but it can always support some of the aims of participatory approaches, such as fostering reflection, empathy, and relevance. While remaining analytically distinct from participatory practices that involve audience input and influence, it plays a valuable and complementary role in science communication by enhancing audience accessibility and resonance.

This essay examines citizen science, from a theoretical and conceptual perspective, as an evolving field situated within emerging agendas for rights that intersect with struggles for environmental, cognitive, and data justice. It contends that citizen science is a polysemic concept, encompassing practices ranging from instrumental data collection to democratic knowledge co-production. Drawing on diverse theoretical contributions and incorporating recent debates within the participatory sciences approach, the essay foregrounds perspectives from Global South authors, particularly decolonial and anti-colonial Latin American thought. The essay explores how citizen science may either challenge or reinforce power asymmetries. On the one hand, it can amplify diverse knowledge systems, foster intercultural dialogue, and act as a form of data activism, strengthening citizenship. On the other, it risks reinforcing platform capitalism, digital surveillance, and data extraction, thereby undermining community autonomy. Cognitive justice and data sovereignty are therefore not inherent conditions of citizen science, but outcomes dependent on equitable governance arrangements, ethical protocols and safeguards, and open infrastructures.

Multimodality in science communication has increased with the rise of digital communication affordances. Digital platforms enable greater integration of modes — text, visuals, and sound — within single messages. We argue that multimodality is particularly crucial for contested scientific issues, where viral spread, emotional persuasiveness, and personalisation are significant. We review empirical evidence and propose future research directions, thereby contributing to science communication in contested environments by examining the role of multimodality.

This essay proposes terroir as a metaphor for rethinking science communication. In contrast to dominant calls for a science of science communication, grounded in broadly replicable and generalisable methods, we suggest that communication practices are fundamentally shaped by the particularities of place, people, histories, and more-than-human relations. Drawing on the agricultural origins of terroir, we argue that good science communication is not about imposing control but about cultivating resonance within specific ecosystems of meaning. This perspective also invites us to recognise the value of intuitive knowledge, local practice, and arts-based methods, which are often excluded from dominant frameworks. As part of the research programme Addressing Sustainability with Arts-Based Science Communication, we explore co-creative, arts-based approaches that surface emotional, sensory, and contextual dimensions of sustainability science communication. Ultimately, we call for a shift: from the search for universal best practices to the careful, situated crafting of an arts of science communication.

SciArt is an evolving field that seeks to bring together art and science. Numerous SciArt spaces and initiatives exist, bridging the gap between the two and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations. However, personal and interpersonal obstacles have been identified for both artists and scientists within the context of SciArt collaborations and environments. Here, we first introduce key concepts about SciArt and then leverage theories from social psychology in the study of group dynamics, including social and group identity, group norms, and minority dissent and influence, to examine artist-scientist collaborations and their challenges. Drawing on social psychology frameworks, our goal is to inform and encourage the creation of Third Spaces that identify common ground between practitioners, foster balanced interactions, build shared group identity and new group dynamics, and ultimately move beyond discipline-specific identities and institutionalized environments.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is profoundly reshaping the field of science communication research. We conducted a literature review of 35 articles published between 2002 and 2024, which reveals that research on AI in science communication is still in its infancy but growing, predominantly concentrated in Western contexts, and methodologically inclined toward quantitative approaches. The field largely focuses on communication about AI and public perceptions of AI rather than analyzing actual engagement with generative AI or its systemic impact on science communication ecosystems. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda centered on four key areas: (1) communication about AI, (2) communication with AI, (3) the impact of AI on science communication ecosystems, and (4) AI’s influence on science, theoretical and methodological approaches.

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.

Social media engagement is typically associated with actions such as sharing, liking, or commenting, and is often measured as such in quantitative analyses. This essay explores what is being captured through these methods by `unpacking' such engagement, arguing for a practice-oriented approach that takes into account the mundane ways in which non-scientists may encounter and use scientific content. We describe practice theory in the context of media production and use, before illustrating the approach with material from comments on Facebook posts produced by science-related sources. In showing the uses of science content in maintaining social bonds or performing particular identities (for instance), we argue that science communication research needs to study the wider contexts of how and why users encounter science online, and that the notion of social media practices can help us to do so.