Let’s Talk About Impact is a series that explores various aspects of making impact. We strive to make a change for the better, to make an impact, but what lies beyond this buzzword? Making societal impact is important, but how do we reach people outside of our academic bubble? That's why today we will dive deeper into science communication and engagement.
When making an impact, your work will have an effect beyond your sphere of control (see episode 1 of this series). If you want to share your work beyond BMS, how do you do that? How do you reach the “general public”? To learn some more and to get inspired, we talked to Anne Dijkstra (associate professor Science Communication at the Communication Science section, pictured right).
Hi Anne, I sometimes read the term Science Communication and sometimes (Public) Engagement, when it comes to involving the public in research. Is there a difference and do you prefer one over the other?
For me, in daily practice, I use both. Science communication can refer both to the field of science communication research as well as to the practice of communicating science. Most people’s first association will mainly relate to the practice option.
Public or citizen engagement or, in short, engagement, could specifically refer to involvement or engagement as a researcher with other groups, for example, citizens or others. Engagement is possible at all phases of doing research. Engagement is one of the important concepts within the field of science communication research. At the same time, it also refers to the activity of engaging with audiences. And it is a whole field of study on its own.
In my personal view, the concept of science communication is broader and can encompass both one-way communication activities or concepts as well as two-way communication activities and concepts such as dialogue and engagement. In practice, research fields mingle a lot which is fine I believe.
Do you notice common misconceptions when it comes to Science Communication / Public Engagement?
Generally speaking, many people are interested in science communication, for example, researchers want to communicate their research, and increasingly more often engage with citizens or users in various stages of their research. Moreover, citizen science, has become very important. However, interests and activities are not always based on findings from science communication research.
An example is the belief in, what we call in our field, the ‘deficit model of science communication’, which basically says that people lack knowledge and understanding of science and by transmitting information people would be educated and would better understand the science. This is not correct, and one-way communication can even have an adversary effect leading to more polarization as has happened with debates about vaccinations. In the field of science communication research, dialogue and engagement are emphasized to better meet the needs of citizens and build trust in science and institutions. So a science-society model, in which providing information may be included, is a better model for science communication.
I understood that you recently founded the Research Centre for Science Communication at the UT. Congratulations! Can you tell a bit more about the goal of this centre?
In the Research Centre for Science Communication and Engagement, we aim to connect science communication research, teaching and practice at the University of Twente. It is a place where research into science communication and societal engagement, teaching about science communication and also practice, for example science communication activities meet. With the centre we want to show what research is conducted in the science communication field, how we use the findings from research in our teaching about science communication and also showcase examples of science communication and engagement activities. If someone is interested and wants to join us, I can be contacted.
What skills does it take to be a “Science Communicator”.
That is a good question. My personal mission is to show that a science communicator - either a professional science communicator or a researcher communicating about science or engaging with audiences – needs more than only skills in communicating science. They should also have an understanding of the broader context in which science communication takes place. Or even broader, the context of how science-society relations are shaped.
Skills can be acquired, but it starts with understanding. For instance, if a science communicator understands better how relationships between researchers and journalists are shaped and how they each have their own interests to serve, it may be easier to anticipate why journalists frame information in a certain way. Or, understanding that scientific knowledge is often not the main source of information for decision-making of policy makers may lead to a different strategy, such as activities to engage more frequently with policy makers to talk about solutions for their problems.
Nowadays, it is increasingly expected that researchers communicate, though not many trainings are offered yet. That is why, together with a science journalist, we developed a fundamentals course which offers basic skills and background information about science communication, science journalism, citizen science and the changing roles of researchers in and towards society. Ultimately, more than a basic training would be needed. Several other universities offer or are developing currently individual coaching or mentoring programmes. I believe that would be helpful at our university as well.
Any last thing you want to share with the reader?
Science communication is so much more than giving a public lecture or speaking about your research for a broader audience. I can give a personal example: after I defended my PhD, I joined the volunteers of the then recently started Science Café Deventer. We organise monthly meetings about science in the Deventer temple of music, the Burgerweeshuis. The concept is simple, we invite a researcher to talk about her work, a band plays music during the breaks, participants drink a coffee or a beer, and after the break it is possible to ask questions. Mostly more than 100 or 120 citizens attend and we have lively discussions about the research topics and implications. That creates much more impact than giving lectures myself, as this work reaches many people and reaches across many topics. Such a facilitating role is also very rewarding: I’m proud when we again have a full house, and moreover, I learn a lot about new research on interesting topics and therefore am able to form my opinion about important scientific developments that are outside my own research field.
Colophon
This series is composed by BMS Research Support. While most content applies to a wider array of disciplines, some may resonate more with a BMS audience. If you work at BMS and have any impact-related questions, reach out to Tom Boogerd. If you work at another faculty, you can still reach out and we can find a colleague of your faculty who can help.
With special thanks to:
This news item is also available as a page on our website.
