Scientists’ participation in science communication and public engagement activities is considered important and a duty. However, in particular, the science-media relationship has not been studied frequently. In this paper, we present findings from interviews with both scientists and journalists which were guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Results show that different behavioural, normative and control beliefs underlie scientists’ and journalists’ participation in science-media interactions. Both groups are positive about science-media interactions, but scientists perceive various disadvantages in this relationship while journalists perceive mainly practical barriers. Enhancing mutual understanding and further research is suggested.

This paper discusses the value and place of evaluation amidst increasing demands for impact. We note that most informal learning institutions do not have the funds, staff or expertise to conduct impact assessments requiring, as they do, the implementation of rigorous research methodologies. However, many museums and science centres do have the experience and capacity to design and conduct site-specific evaluation protocols that result in valuable and useful insights to inform ongoing and future practice. To illustrate our argument, we discuss the evaluation findings from a museum-led teacher professional development programme, Talk Science.

In this paper, we investigate who are the explainers who work is Brazilian science centres and museums. We used an online survey, which was answered by 370 people from 73 institutions out of a group of 200 scientific and cultural centres. Our results indicate that most of these professionals are young people between 18 and 25 years old, they hold a high school certificate or are attending university, and they have been working in this field for less than five years. Only a fifth declared that they had done professional training before starting their activities; about 60% said that they are not prepared to attend to disabled visitors. We believe that our study will improve the practice of science communication, contributing to the creation of training and professional courses.

Many climate scientists find themselves confronted with the challenge of purportedly “knowing better” — while this is a valid claim with respect to a small segment of reality, namely their narrow field of expertise, the public expectation often is that they know better about the “world’s problems”, and what to do about it, sometimes even with the rhetoric of “saving” the world. Artists may help in this situation by bringing forth different viewpoints, challenging hidden assumptions and suggesting surprising links; however, more often, the arts seem to be considered as a useful supporter in attempts to save the world. In the present project, however, the artists seem to have taken climate science mostly as a point of departure for their individual curiosity and joy of experimenting.

The notion of ‘artistic research’ is a buzzword in contemporary cultural policy, scientific and artistic discourses. This text is not trying to add another note to the polyphony of attempts to define the concept. Rather, it aims to trace and analyse some possible backgrounds of emergence, suggesting that the myriad of definitions and descriptions of artistic research is rooted in the most varying and to a point contradictory motivations.

This issue sees the implementation of new designs for the JCOM website and articles and there are plans for further updates over the next year. In a recent survey, we have explored readers opinions of the journal with a view to introducing improvements. Your interests are diverse, which is not surprising for a field which ranges from books and print media, to museums and interactive technologies. We are also reviewing our peer review process to ensure that it meets the needs of our authors.

To observe art and science in interaction offered a great opportunity for me as cultural anthropologist to learn about the production of climate knowledge. Like ethnographers, artists entered the world of science, observed climate scientists and participated in their daily routines. They dissected elements of the scientific process and focused on science as a social practice. For scientists and artists, a process of “self-identification via the other” [Kramer, 1993] was set into motion. The artwork reflects this process by “mimicking” scientific procedures and by linking human sentiment and material sediments. Introducing the anthropological imagery of the trickster, I suggest that the project challenges a basic modern constitution — the separation of nature and culture — and brings the debate about climate change back into society.

“I hope to offer a unique artistic perspective on a topic which is hidden from our everyday view” States my application. Will I be able to fulfil this task? Here is a short summary of my experiences as a visiting artist researcher

The visiting artist researcher experiment discussed here brought together visual artists and climate scientists, amongst them my research group which studies storms. The artists’ stay led to a dialogue between our diverging perspectives and an open exchange of ideas. The exchange in my research group was more interactive than I had expected. Many conversations provided insights into ideas and work flows of the artists and, eventually, a new view on our storm studies.

After the first paradigm shift from the deficit model to two-way communication, the field of science communication is in need of a second paradigm shift. This second shift sees communication as an inherently distributed element in the socio-technical system of science and technology development. Science communication is understood both from a systems perspective and its consecutive parts, in order to get a grip on the complex and dynamic reality of science, technology development and innovation in which scientists, industrial and governmental partners and the lay public collaborate. This essay reflects on the under-development of system thinking in science communication and the need to fix this. Legitimation for the second paradigm shift is found in the ‘crisis in social sciences’ that has led to a revival of system theory to balance the deterministic thinking in our grounding discipline. This essay concludes with the idea of a ‘Communication for Innovation-Lab’ as an experimental setting in which whole/part thinking in science communication can be shaped according to this second paradigm shift, forming seed crystals for future developments.