Quality not quantity counts in science communication
We cannot rely on stereotypes of public attitudes, says Massimiano Bucchi
Professor Massimiano Bucchi, University of Trento, Italy
In 2015 it will be thirty years since the Royal Society published its Public Understanding of Science report, which sounded alarm bells for the scientific community with regards to its relationship with the general public.
Nearly three decades later, there is hardly any doubt that science communication efforts aimed at non-expert audiences have increased in quantity and intensity on a global scale. Public engagement and outreach activities have now become a routine and often prominent feature for many research institutions in Europe and elsewhere. Financial and human resources are devoted to these activities, and researchers themselves are increasingly – even directly by their institutions – encouraged to pursue this ‘third mission’ alongside more traditional research and teaching duties.
However, many of these activities still rely on good intentions of communicators and, even more, on stereotypes of public perception and attitudes. This is despite the fact that our understanding of the publics of science has become richer and more articulated during the past decades.
Understanding the publics
I deliberately use the term ‘publics’, not ‘the public’. Studies looking at public perception and attitudes have shown very clearly that ‘the public’ is increasingly diverse, even fragmented. Generalisations about the public – specifically in terms of its deficits – are very rarely valid, and often seriously misleading.
The idea of referring to publics was proposed as part of a contextual model of communication. According to this model, communicators inform themselves about, and are attentive to, the various understandings, beliefs and attitudes within the public.
Beyond the obvious differentiation of publics as young or old, male or female, and scientifically educated or not, the approach to multiple publics has been supported by the accumulation of data that show widely varying interests, attention and disposition towards scientific matters in the populations of individual countries and, comparatively, across countries and continents.
What we already know
Beginning with surveys that assessed the public knowledge of scientific facts over fifty years ago, these studies have become increasingly more sophisticated and nuanced. They now measure fine distinctions within and between national populations on, for example, the level of trust towards scientists and scientific institutions and the attitudes to emerging technologies. These studies also allow such attitudes to be correlated with educational experiences and world views. Cross-country analyses of the findings make it possible to sketch patterns within national cultures.
As a result, when scientists are trained for public communication, a strong focus on multiple publics is almost standard now. Short courses offered to researchers by research councils, universities, professional organisations and others very often start by asking: who are the publics you want to communicate with, and why?
How we should move forward
With this advanced understanding of who we are communicating with, public communication of science should now be mature enough to leave behind the initial ‘heroic’ phase that was marked by an ‘everything goes’ approach.
Instead, we should transition to a phase in which quality is a central challenge. It must begin with a thorough understanding of potential publics. At the same time, we must follow up the transformations, also in relation to actions taken, and it is vital that we evaluate the impact of communication and engagement portfolios through appropriate measures. These steps remain central challenges for anyone undertaking science communication.
I am thus delighted to see that the Royal Society of Chemistry is seeking this maturity in its approach to public communication of science by investigating public attitudes and behaviours in relation to the chemical sciences. I have no doubt the results of this promising study will help strengthen and better focus future communication and engagement.
