Improved Communication Skills

Many criticisms of the PUS movement have emphasised that this thing they were calling the public was somewhat of a (unhelpful) black box. Approaches to the public changed with the move with the move away from PUS. Science communication researchers and practitioners now often showcase their desire to listen to non-scientists as well as acknowledging an awareness of the fluid and complex nature of (post/late) modern social identities. At the very least, people will use plurals: publics or audiences. As the editor of Public Understanding of Science put it in a special issue on publics: We have clearly moved from the old days of the deficit frame and thinking of publics as monolithic to viewing publics as active, knowledgeable, playing multiple roles, receiving as well as shaping science. (Einsiedel, 2007: 5) However, Einsiedel goes on to suggest both views of the public are ‘monolithic’ in their own way; they both choose to declare what something called the public is. PUS might have ridic...

Writing in 1987, Geoffery Thomas and John Durant describe the various reasons for increased Public Understanding of Science as follows: * Benefits to Science – This is the ‘to know is to love’ argument, and perhaps mixes up the word ‘understanding’ with ‘appreciation’. It suggests that increased PUS will lead to more funding, looser regulation and more trained scientists. * Benefits to National Economics – This argues that to compete economically we need trained scientists and engineers, which more PUS will provide. * Benefits to Individuals – This is based on the sense that we live in a technological society, and assumes that we must know some science to negotiate it (e.g. knowing about surface tension helps us kill spiders). * Benefits to Democratic Government & Society as a Whole – This train of thought emphasises that a scientifically informed electorate equals a more democratically run society. * Intellectual, Aesthetic, and Moral Benefits – These arguments...

Concerns over the public’s relationship with science have been around as long as we have had a concept of professional science (indeed, some would argue, earlier). Notable examples include the foundation of the Royal Institution and the British Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the building of science museums across the world. Generally, these projects have been motivated by worries over the lack of public funds for science, a perceived need for more trained scientists and/or concerns that non-scientists have been misled by the claims of pseudo-science or new age beliefs. Science communication can be a very controversial area, as the various norms and motivations of a multitude of groups bustle for dominance. For example, activist groups and scientists may all clash over science policy (e.g. on issues of animal experimentation). Similarly, journalists and scientists might argue over the best way to simplify complex ideas for a non-expert audience, or disagree over w...

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 communic...