Skip to main content

Science communication

Science communication generally refers to media aiming to talk about science with non-scientists. It is sometimes done by professional scientists (then often dubbed outreach' or 'popularization') but has evolved into a professional field in its own right.

Partly due to a market for professional training, science communication is also an academic discipline. The two key journals are the Public Understanding of Science and Science Communication. Researchers in this field are often closely linked to Science and Technology Studies, but they may also come from the history of science as well as mainstream media studies, psychology, sociology or literature studies. Agricultural communication is considered a subset of science communication from an academic and professional standpoint.

All sorts of people call the work they do ‘science communication’, and it can be a very loosely applied term. Generally, it involves some discussion of science with non-scientists. Scientists communicating to one another, for example through scholarly journal articles, is a form of science communication, but the term is usually applied to more ‘public-facing’ work

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Characteristics of Mass Communication

Five characteristics of mass communication have been identified by Cambridge University's John Thompson. Firstly, it "comprises both technical and institutional methods of production and distribution". This is evident throughout the history of the media, from print to the Internet, each suitable for commercial utility. Secondly, it involves the "commodification of symbolic forms",as the production of materials relies on its ability to manufacture and sell large quantities of the work. Just as radio stations rely on its time sold to advertisements, newspapers rely for the same reasons on its space. Mass communication's third characteristic is the "separate contexts between the production and reception of information", while the fourth is in its "reach to those 'far removed' in time and space, in comparison to the producers". Mass communication, which involves "information distribution". This is a "one to many" f...

Conclusion

Open communication climates encourage employees through supporting them, through allowing them to participate in decision making, and, through trusting them, which assures the integrity of information channels. Ultimately, the openness of any communication climate depends upon the character of the participants. Openness often demands courage because the communicator operates with lowered or eliminated defensive barriers, even when standing up to verbal assault. Because open communicators have to articulate their positions in meetings, public arenas, and in print, they must be secure individuals, confident in their own positions, ability, and authority. Yet, while open communication climate may make formidable personal demands, such openness ultimately rewards both the individual and the organization in providing an environment where people thrive and enterprise flourishes.

Trusting Environments

All parties in information exchange must tell the truth as they perceive it. They must also ensure that information is correct. Credibility is any employee's greatest asset. A reputation for carelessness, lying, deceit, or manipulation undercuts all future messages. The result of credibility is trust; it underpins all human relationships. Employees have to believe their information sources. If, for example, at weekly meetings, the staff hears contradictory information about project plans, decisions, or salary, they will dis­miss all information because they cannot confidently choose which to believe. If one week they are told the start-up date is November 14, the next week November 20, and following week November 7, they will understandably dismiss all the information as not credible. Repeated instances of passing such contradictory information will corrupt the integrity of the communication channel. People quickly dismiss information sources that prove to be wrong or untrustworthy...