r/sciencecommunication • u/MagGicDambara • Feb 02 '24
Who should really communicate science?
Greetings to the community!
To my knowledge, there are two kinds of people who communicate science: researchers (who communicate the impact of their own work) and non-researchers, who are "science communicators" (they could be journalists with a scientific background, or people who create informative videos, or people working in museums, organisations, etc). Apparently, the ones from the latter group do not conduct reasearch.
Regarding researchers, no-one really knows the potential or the limitations of their reasearch better than them. However, they often lack the ability to inform the public effectively about their accomplishments. This is why only few researchers talk about their science to the masses and this is why this process is usually up to mediators.
On the other hand, "science mediators" might be closer to the way an average person thinks, so they may be more effective at targeting their audience. However, sometimes, they may lack the deep understanding of a scientific concept, which is required in order to be precise on what they actually want to communicate. The result is bad science communication.
Do you think that researchers should be better trained in order to engage the public? Do you believe it is possible to be trained on communicating a concept better, or is it more of an innate thing? If researchers can actually be trained, are "science mediators", in that context, actually necessary?
Who should be "allowed" to communicate science after all, so that there is maximum impact on society? Are both groups the same in terms of importance?
3
u/Aggravating_Hour9965 Feb 07 '24
Hi, I'm a science PIO with a decade of work experience in the field. To be honest, I don't like the question: Who "should" communicate science? This sounds like there's a certain class of people uniquely qualified to do so while others, no matter how hard they try, are not. This sounds really strange from a professional perspective.
But to entertain your question and give you a perspective of somebody working in scicomms at a university: Depending on the topics you cover, I do think that having a STEM background might come in handy. I don't think you will need a PhD. This way you might be able to understand papers more easily. However, since you are mostly writing for a lay audience, it might make your explanations harder to understand since you will need to work extra hard to put yourself . This is why I think that having some kind of training in science communication, preferably with a lot of hands-on experience as well as basic knowledge about style, accessible writing etc., is a must.
I've had the displeasure of working with highly trained scientists turned PIO without any kind of training in communications. They produced some of the worst press releases I have ever read. The same goes for humanities grads with little to no knowledge (or in some cases interest) in the fields they are supposed to cover.
To answer your question: I think that in order to produce good content, people should have a great knowledge about both science and communication, preferably both with hands-on experience. I don't care much about formal training either way, though it might help.
More creative endeavors such as video, comics etc. might require more skills.