Filter by author: Massimiano Bucchi

The book edited by Moreno-Castro, Krzewińska and Dzimińska intends to “contribute to the general discussion on the public perception of science, the issue of information overload, trust in science sources and the most effective ways of communicating science information”. The book presents the main results of the CONCISE project funded by the European Commission. In 2019, just before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, five public consultations were conducted with citizens in Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and Portugal, involving a total of 497 citizens. Four specific topics were at the centre of discussions and consultations with the citizens involved: vaccines, climate change, GMOs, “complementary and alternative medicine”. The European study is documented in detail in the book and conveys the impression of a well thought-out, organised and concerted set of activities. The list of authors includes several well-known researchers in the field of science communication in Europe.

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.

The argument that we live in times of great change is probably a common thread in the reflection on science communication in most historical phases and contexts. Have there ever been periods of continuity in science communication, in which actors and scholars did not have the perception of substantial transformations and required change? Or to put it more provocatively: have we ever been satisfied with science communication as it was? And if not, why so? One possible, and apparently paradoxical, conclusion is that the focus on change is itself an element of continuity in the history of science communication.

In this essay the authors reflect on some recent trends in science communication research, celebrating it as an inherently interdisciplinary endeavour. Some current tendencies in science communication are more limiting, however: they present theoretical and strategic prescriptions that do not adquately reflect the variety and cultural diversity of science communication internationally. Rethinking science communication in the context of such diverse practices and cultural reorientations, the authors revise some of their own views and revisit notions of communication as conversation to propose an inclusive definition of science communication as the social conversation around science.

Several publications have sought to define the field of science communication and review current issues and recent research. But the status of science communication is uncertain in disciplinary terms. This commentary considers two dimensions of the status of discipline as they apply to science communication – the clarity with which the field is defined and the level of development of theories to guide formal studies. It argues that further theoretical development is needed to support science communication’s full emergence as a discipline.