Tag Archives: science communication

Evidence-based science communication workshop, 10 June 2009

Posted on by
Reply

Getting the Message Across

ASC NSW event, 10 June, 2009

By Shannon Fong, ASC NSW event reporter

Carol Oliver enjoying a finely made point during the workshop discussion

Carol Oliver enjoying a finely made point during the workshop discussion

How effective is science education within Australia? Dr Carol Oliver, from the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, said this will be an open question until adequate research is done into the subject. Carol emphasised the importance of understanding one’s audience in communicating knowledge effectively yet highlighted the lack of evidence that audiences are taking away the intended messages.

“How is it that the Australian Government can spend millions of dollars on science education when they do not even know what the outcome is?” she said. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that by the time children get to high school, much of the scientific information that they have learnt in their primary years has since been forgotten.

In Australian universities, a substantial proportion of science students did not do science in Years 11 and 12. It appears that many are opting to get into university with a low UAI by choosing a science degree, and this could be lowering the quality of science students. With the Australian adult scientific literacy rate being approximately 15% (figure derived from a pilot study by Dr Oliver), our democracy is facing less informed decision making for an increasing number of science related issues. Perhaps a key to developing a more scientifically informed electorate is for science educators to make far greater use of changing modes of communication.

In America, more than half of the audience in search of scientific information look towards the Internet. In Australia, 92% of the population use Google as their search engine, and as of December, 2008, one fifth of Australians over 18 used Facebook. “This certainly says something about where to aim information, as well as where to gain feedback from the audience on the impact of such information,” Dr Oliver said.

Question time during the workshop

Question time during the workshop

However, numerous questions remain. To encourage general public interest in science is it more effective to promote information from science experts or provide access to a less expert but more populist knowledge source? And should scientific information be aimed at all of the population or only those who are interested? If the Australian Government undertook research into the effectiveness of scientific education, then maybe we would know.

Background to the National Science Communication Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Towards a National Science Communication Strategy (NSCS)

Background Information for Participants

Introduction

For a number of reasons, it is timely to examine the science communication landscape in Australia and to consider whether the status quo is a satisfactory situation. At the national level, there have been recent reviews of the National Innovation System, CSIRO Science Education Centres, and two areas within the Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) – the Science Connections Program (SCOPE) and Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre.  The ABC, Australia’s national broadcaster, is currently undergoing a major public review phase.  Furthermore a new national science curriculum is under development.

Australia is fortunate to have a range of quality organisations and individuals in the science communication ‘ecosystem’ and significant strengths to build upon. It is in Australia’s interest to work towards a more coherent approach to fully utilise all national assets.

Australia has significant strengths in science communication but the broad science communication effort is fragmented and uneven across the country.  This problem was identified in the 2003 Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) study into Science Engagement and Education that recommended a ‘national framework-local action’ approach.

A DIISR Steering Committee comprising the Deputy Secretary, the Chief Scientist, the Chief Executive of CSIRO, the Director of Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre, and a representative of The ABC, together with supporting officers, has met to discuss the need for a national science communication strategy.

As part of the post-Budget re-structuring of the DIISR, the Questacon division of the Department has been asked to work towards the development of a national strategy which will encourage a more coordinated approach to science communication across Australia. Questacon now has responsibility for the SCOPE program, which includes a number of national initiatives such as National Science Week. Questacon has been asked to design a replacement program for this lapsing program, as part of a national science communication strategy.

The Goal

As previously articulated (PMSEIC 2003), Australia’s success as a 21st century knowledge society will depend on having an excellent education system, a technologically-skilled workforce, a science-literate community and well-informed decision makers.

Science communication activities supports

  • the development of an adequate supply of well-qualified scientists, mathematicians engineers and technologists;
  • the development of a society that is informed and excited about science, values its importance to the country’s economic and social well-being, feels confident in its use and supports a representative well-qualified scientific workforce; and
  • the provision of trusted quality information for opinion formers, policy developers and decision makers.

It will be important for a national science communication strategy to:

  • embrace a broad definition of science communication to encompass science, mathematics, engineering and technology, as well as to incorporate the perspectives of the humanities and social sciences;
  • draw from the experience and findings of similar initiatives, including overseas initiatives;
  • consider how current assets and capability (at national, state/territory and local levels) could better be aligned, connected, developed and delivered in order to achieve greater outcomes and impacts in these areas;
  • develop a “national framework – local action” model which takes into account relevant policy initiatives at federal/state/local levels, which optimises opportunities for existing and potential players and investors to contribute, and which builds cooperation through questions such as “What can I do? What can you do? What can we do together?”;
  • address issues of leadership, facilitation and coordination which will be key to the success of any forward strategy and implementation plan;
  • be practical, providing improved outcomes which can be achieved within the short term (next 12 months), within the medium term (next 5 years), and within existing and realistic resource and budget parameters.

The Process

The Steering Committee will propose a more coordinated approach for science communication to Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research at the end of September 2009.

In order to inform the development of a national policy framework, a forward strategy and implementation plan, a series of key stakeholder discussions are planned during July and August to obtain broad input from a range of organisations and individuals with an interest in science communication. These consultations will be led by Professor Graham Durant as a member of the Steering Committee, or senior secretariat officers.

The consultations will not involve all individuals and organisations with an interest in science communication. Rather, a sample of individuals and organisational representatives, who are associated with state/local science communication initiatives, are being invited to participate in a small group discussion to provide:

  1. insight into the state/local science communication scene
  2. suggestions on how state/local initiatives could benefit and develop through better coordination or through linking into a national framework
  3. practical ideas on actions which could be taken in the short term (during the next 12 months) and in the medium term (over the next five years)

In addition to stakeholder discussion sessions and interviews, the Steering Committee would welcome further input by way of a written submission. Written submissions must be received no later than 24 August 2009 via mail to:

The Secretariat
National Science Communication Strategy
Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
PO Box 5322  Kingston ACT 2604

Alternatively, written submissions can be emailed no later than 24 August 2009 to sciencecommunications [at] innovation.gov.au

Towards a National Science Communication Strategy (NSCS)

Agenda

  • Introduction
  • An opportunity to introduce ourselves and to clarify the process to develop a national science communication strategy
  • State Scenario
  • Outlining the state of play for science communication in your state
  • Who are the key players?
  • What are the major activities?
  • Who are collaborating (at local/state/national levels) to deliver science communication activity?
  • How well is this scenario working and what could be improved?
  • National Framework – Local Action
  • What mechanisms would support and sustain more effective and extensive cooperation, involvement and investment?
  • The Way Forward
  • What are some practical ideas that we can action in the next 12 months, in the next 5 years?
  • Summary of Discussions
  • Where to from here?

ASC submission on the National Science Communication Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

If you are interested in the development of the National Science Communication Strategy, here is an opportunity to get involved in shaping the Australian Science Communicators’ submission.

This is an invitation to join an electronic forum/discussion where you can put forward your views. The URL is http://auscicommstrategy.ning.com/

Time lines are short. The submission has to be emailed to the steering committee by Monday 24 August. I propose to begin drafting something on Friday 14 August. During the week commencing Monday 17 August, I will be in Brisbane at the Intecol conference and the ASC Hot Air symposium  (Wednesday 19 August) where I will be meeting with Jenni Metcalfe, Joan Leach and Will Rifkin among others, to refine the draft submission. Hopefully, I will be able to complete it when I get home in time for lodging on Monday 24 August.

During this process, I should be able to lodge draft versions in this forum for comment.

What I want from you is input on the following:

  1. What should be the goal of a National Science Communication Strategy? What should science communication achieve?
  2. How do you evaluate effective science communication? Examples?
  3. Practical examples of successful science communication.
  4. Practical ideas for action in the next 12 months and the next five years?
  5. What should be the Commonwealth responsibility in this area and what should be left to the States?
  6. Mechanisms that could support and sustain more effective science communication—particularly those which would simulate cooperation between groups and future investment in science communication.

You can lodge your ideas on these and other topics on the Ning set up for the purpose.

For Comment: Draft Charter for Science Communication in Australia

Posted on by
1

DRAFT 1 – CHARTER FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN AUSTRALIA

Principles

  1. Scientific knowledge is the common heritage of all people.
  2. The sharing, or communication, of scientific knowledge is as important as its discovery.
  3. The future of Australia depends on the equitable sharing and rapid adoption of sound scientific knowledge.
  4. Scientific knowledge should be communicated as truthfully, ethically, fairly and widely as practical for the benefit of Australia.
  5. The future of Australian science depends on its ability to shape itself to the needs, values and standards of Australians.
  6. The interests of the Australian people are higher than those of any individual, scientific institution, funding agency, commercial entity or government body.

Code of practice

Science communicators hold the future in our hands. We help to move the new knowledge generated by scientists to the people who need and will use it.  We spread awareness of new insights into Australia, humanity and the world we live in. We educate, inform, stimulate, challenge, inspire and warn. We are agents of change, transmitters of new technologies, heralds of ideas for a sustainable and prosperous society. We also help scientists to understand the needs and wishes of our society, so their science may serve it better.

We are professional communicators, journalists, writers and authors, teachers, lecturers, scientists and technologists, engineers, social scientists . We value scientific knowledge for itself and for the benefits it can bring society, and we recognise the potential harm it can cause if misapplied.

[J1] As science communicators we commit ourselves to:

  1. Communicate science truthfully, factually and professionally in the interests of all Australians
  2. Communicate science as widely as possible, in order to promote the useful, safe and rapid adoption of new knowledge and technologies for the benefit of Australia.
  3. Recognise that the Australian public through their taxes pay for most science and that their lives may be affected by it.  They are therefore owed a factual report or explanation.
  4. Encourage and assist scientists and scientific organisations to share the new knowledge they have gained through research with Australian governments, industry and the community as widely as possible.
  5. Encourage and assist scientists and other researchers to communicate their work to the public and other audiences in a skilful, informative and respectful fashion.
  6. Encourage scientific institutions to listen closely to community and national opinion about science in order to respond to the needs, wishes and concerns of Australia and promote the useful, rapid and safe adoption of new knowledge
  7. Observe and uphold high professional standards of honesty, integrity and fairness in the communication of science.
  8. Acknowledge that almost all technologies have potential downsides or capacity for misapplication, and communicate these accurately and in a balanced fashion, as well as the potential benefits.
  9. Not permit personal interest, belief, payment, suasion or coercion to undermine our commitment to truthfulness, fairness, balance or professional integrity in communicating science.
  10. Not allow commercial, bureaucratic or other organisational considerations to undermine the principle of providing a fair, truthful and balanced report to the Australian people.

Julian Cribb FTSE
January 30, 2008

[J1]This is a purely optional section, I was just trying to define who a science communicator is.

The importance of evidence

Posted on by
Reply

There are many ways of communicating science. But what evidence do we have that any of it is effective in improving the understanding of science? The answer is very little. When it comes to engaging students or the public in science, we may be doing no more than moving deck chairs on the Titantic.

Sless and Shrensky characterise the situation perfectly “…the evidence for the effectiveness of (science) communication is about as strong as the evidence linking rainmaking ceremonies to the occurrence of rain,” Sless, D. and Shrensky, R. (2001) Science Communication in Theory and Practice, eds Stocklmayer, S., Gore, M.M. and Bryant, C.R., Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Some years ago a leading American science communicator, Dr Rick Borchelt, led a team of ‘blue ribbon’ science journalists and communicators to produce a best practices roadmap for NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center. A key finding of the 2001 report was that it was surprising that science, as a data-driven enterprise, did not demand evidence of the effectiveness of science communication.

There are several reasons why evidence does not exist beyond simple evaluation.  One is lack of funding to gather the evidence. While the resources required may be less than that needed for science research, it is still significant enough to need substantial funding.

Another aspect is the value of science communication, especially in a university environment.  No ‘research quantum’ (monetary value to a university) is assigned to science communication successes because Government funding does not include it. For example, I led a team in collaboration with NASA to produce a science-related project, which in 18 months attracted five million hits on the associated wiki.  Why is that not worth quantum for the research centre it was done in?

Science communication is still – more often than not – included almost as an afterthought in relation to science research. I’ve been involved in a major report on a specific area of research where for more than two years I fought for the education and outreach to be recognised as more than the required add-on with little or no funding.  We are reaching out to tomorrow’s scientists – and with three decades of decline in interest in science in our high schools, goodness knows we need it.

Scientists are frequently called on to do more in communicating their science to the public. But what evidence is there that it does anything to improve the public understanding of science?

Borchelt and his team found, after two years of research, that the principle reason scientists communicate with the public is not the one they intend. The actual aim is to please their bosses in getting column or airspace to promote their institution’s science. The Borchelt team recognised there is nothing wrong with this kind of promotion of the awareness of science. Nevertheless, it is not the same as improving the public understanding of science. And in either case there is no evidence of success (beyond pleasing an institution’s boss).

One of the key tenants of good communication (science or otherwise) is ‘know your audience’. On this rests the most serious issue of all for Australia. Unlike the US, Europe, and elsewhere, we do not test public audiences for their understanding of science. We also do not test our students leaving their high school science education for that understanding of science. We do not test for the effectiveness of science curricula. And the proposed Australian science curriculum is based on…you’ve got it…nothing – at least in the box that says ‘how effective are current science curricula?’

How does this impact on public audience consumers of science in the mass media? Journalists have little but intuition to make assumptions about reader/listener/viewer understanding of science, let alone know how information via the mass media shapes personal world views about science. But as a past science journalist, I know the response: we do not aim to educate: we inform – based on the evidence that science provides.

Perhaps the Australian word for a type of camping gear – a swag – is actually an acronym for the effectiveness of science communication: “Stupid Wild Assumptions and Guesses”!

More seriously, how can we understand what we are doing (or achieving) in science education, outreach, and the public understanding of science, unless we have the evidence of effectiveness in any of those areas?

We need significant change to happen if we are going to do anymore than what seems to be intuitively good to do – from high school science education to science communication in the public domain. We have a lot of work to do.

•    Dr Carol Oliver is a science communication specialist with the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at the University of NSW.