scholarly journals Storytelling: the soul of science communication

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (05) ◽  
pp. E ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Joubert ◽  
Lloyd Davis ◽  
Jennifer Metcalfe
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Key Success Factors ◽  
Core Theme ◽  
The Core ◽  
Science Stories ◽  
Communication Of Science ◽  
Selection Of

There is a renewed interest amongst science communication practitioners and scholars to explore the potential of storytelling in public communication of science, including to understand how science storytelling functions (or could fail) in different contexts. Drawing from storytelling as the core theme of the 2018 conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network, we present a selection of papers, essays and practice insights that offer diverse perspectives. Some contributions focus on the cultural and structural qualities of science stories and its key success factors, while others explore new formats, platforms and collaborators in science storytelling activities.

scholarly journals Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (05) ◽  
pp. A01 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Rachael Davies ◽  
Megan Halpern ◽  
Maja Horst ◽  
David Kirby ◽  
Bruce Lewenstein
Keyword(s):  
Popular Culture ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
Identity Work ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Key Frame ◽  
Cultural Approach ◽  
Science Stories ◽  
Communication Of Science

The last three decades have seen extensive reflection concerning how science communication should be modelled and understood. In this essay we propose the value of a cultural approach to science communication — one that frames it primarily as a process of meaning-making. We outline the conceptual basis for this view of culture, drawing on cultural theory to suggest that it is valuable to see science communication as one aspect of (popular) culture, as storytelling or narrative, as ritual, and as collective meaning-making. We then explore four possible ways that a cultural approach might proceed: by mobilising ideas about experience; by framing science communication through identity work; by focusing on fiction; and by paying attention to emotion. We therefore present a view of science communication as always entangled within, and itself shaping, cultural stories and meanings. We close by suggesting that one benefit of this approach is to move beyond debates concerning ‘deficit or dialogue’ as the key frame for public communication of science.

Science Communication Is Culture: Foregrounding Ritual in the Public Communication of Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwendolyn Blue
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Cultural Models ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Opportune Time ◽  
Democratic Engagement ◽  
Communication Of Science

This commentary demonstrates the relevance of James Carey’s ritual view of communication for the field of science communication. A ritual view of communication invites examination of the geographical, historical, and material dimensions of communication where dialogues, bodies, public spaces, and comestibles provide enabling conditions for democratic engagement. This is an opportune time for science communications scholars to engage with Carey’s ideas as the field moves from deficit accounts of communication to the dialogic and cultural models that have become more prevalent in recent decades. A ritual view highlights the importance of theoretical, humanist approaches as complements to empirical, instrumental accounts of science communication.

scholarly journals Performing Science in Public: Science Communication and Scientific Identity

2021 ◽  
pp. 207-223
Author(s):  
Sarah R. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Identity Work ◽  
The Self ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Public Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Communication Of Science ◽  
Scientific Identity ◽  
The City ◽  
Communication Supports

AbstractThis chapter examines the identity work that takes place within public communication of science. Using a conceptualisation of identity as performance – and thus as something that may be done differently within different contexts – it uses the case of a large science festival, Science in the City, which took place in Copenhagen in 2014, to examine how scientific identities can be enacted in science communication. The key argument is that such communication supports multiple and flexible identity performances. Scientific identities are intertwined with other ways of performing the self, and both audiences and communicators are heterogeneous communities, which do not neatly sit in categories of ‘scientists’ or ‘the public’. Ultimately, it appears that science communication is used by scientists (and others) for many different identity-building purposes, in many different ways.

When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communication

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiano Bucchi
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Multivariate Model ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Communication Of Science ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Alternative Routes ◽  
Normative Models ◽  
Different Levels

This paper argues that both the traditional normative models and the more refined (`continuity') models of public communication of science fail to account adequately for cases of `deviation', i.e. those cases when scientists address the public directly by skipping the usual stages of scientific communication. It is hypothesized that most of such cases are related to crisis situations and to the definition of scientific boundaries. Therefore, at least two modalities of public communication of science should be distinguished: one is the routine, generally unproblematic itinerary of a scientific idea through the different levels of communication as presented by the continuity models; and the other is the dramatic (re)assessment of boundaries and professional competences in the public arena that is required by marginal situations. Continuity models need to be supplemented by a multilevel, multivariate model which enables us to explain this second modality and to understand in more detail the role that the level of public communication plays when such a modality is activated.

scholarly journals Scientists: Engage the Public!

mBio ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika C. Shugart ◽  
Vincent R. Racaniello
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Social Stigma ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advanced Society ◽  
The Social

ABSTRACT Scientists must communicate about science with public audiences to promote an understanding of complex issues that we face in our technologically advanced society. Some scientists may be concerned about a social stigma or “Sagan effect” associated with participating in public communication. Recent research in the social sciences indicates that public communication by scientists is not a niche activity but is widely done and can be beneficial to a scientist's career. There are a variety of approaches that scientists can take to become active in science communication.

scholarly journals Rethinking science communication in a changing landscape

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. E
Author(s):  
Frank Kupper ◽  
Carolina Moreno-Castro ◽  
Alessandra Fornetti
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Selection Of

Science communication continues to grow, develop and change, as a practice and field of research. The boundaries between science and the rest of society are blurring. Digitalization transforms the public sphere. This JCOM special issue aims to rethink science communication in light of the changing science communication landscape. How to characterize the emerging science communication ecosystem in relation to the introduction of new media and actors involved? What new practices are emerging? How is the quality of science communication maintained or improved? We present a selection of papers that provide different perspectives on these questions and challenges.

Do Organizational Interests Interfere with Public Communication of Science? An Explorative Study of Public Relations of Scientific Organizations in Taiwan

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-574
Author(s):  
Yin-Yueh Lo ◽  
Chun-Ju Huang ◽  
Hans Peter Peters
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Academic Organizations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Stakeholder Interests ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Communication Of Science

Abstract The relevance of public relations (PR) efforts of scientific organizations for public communication of science is increasingly recognized. PR departments are not mere mediators between scientists and journalists but represent the stakeholder interests of their organizations in the public sphere and are communicative actors themselves. Previous Taiwanese studies focused on university PR in the educational context, whereas the potential function in the communication of research and scientific knowledge received less attention. This study explores how PR departments of academic organizations in Taiwan view their role in the public communication of science. Insights from eleven semistructured interviews with PR officers suggest that public relations departments of academic organizations in Taiwan only half-heartedly contribute to the communication of science. Another interesting finding is that even in the era of social media science, PR still relies heavily on journalism, which in Taiwan lacks professionalism in the communication of science. We suggest a more active role of academic organizations in the public communication of science, pursuing not only marketing or self-presentation goals, but also assuming genuine responsibility for public information about research and scientific knowledge.

scholarly journals Some contributions of Habermas to the study of public communication of science

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-44
Author(s):  
Ana Eliza Ferreira Alvim-Silva ◽  
José Roberto Pereira ◽  
Cibele Maria Garcia de Aguiar
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Social Interests ◽  
Science And Politics ◽  
Communication Of Science ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Practice Of Science

Abstract: This theoretical essay explores three publications by Jürgen Habermas from the 1960s. The author deals with the critique of science, the production of knowledge and universities democratization. The objective was to extract from them clipings of reflections that can contribute to the studies of public communication of science. We consolidated the considerations into a graphic representation that summarizes the factors to be considered when thinking about the practice of science communication in society: the importance of considering the three interests that drive the production of knowledge - technical, practical and emancipatory, of promoting self-reflection of sciences in politicized and democratized universities, and the mediation of society in the interaction between science and politics, to subsidize decision-making based on social interests. We argue that the basis for a public communication idea of dialogical science - now widely defended - emerged in the German philosopher’s thinking in books published more than 50 years ago. However, that was not his central motivation at that time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document