Discover the world of WissKomm: Research & Science Communication
Fishing for compli- eh, case studies! We also offer you perceptive analyses.
Society is diverse. This makes it difficult for Public Engagement to reach one group. Nevertheless, there are people who think and act similarly. The researchers from More in Common summarized these and worked out six types.
Listening must be an integral part of a public engagement strategy. This means that representatives should be in contact with the population from the very beginning. This minimizes the danger of thinking from the “ivory tower.
People who have little exposure to science are not interested in public engagement opportunities. Addressing them requires time and resources. For some PE representatives, developing offerings for this segment of the population is a supreme discipline. To ensure that public engagement does not become the supreme discipline for these people, three building blocks are essential.
The current situation of the Corona pandemic shows why communicators have to think along with less affine people from the beginning. People who refuse to vaccinate have little or no trust in science. Instead, they inform themselves on social media platforms or alternative media. They avoid statements that do not fit their view. Scientists have little access to this group.
Normally, the goals of an academy are fixed at the beginning – such as improving one’s own communication skills. At the Sustainable Futures Academy, the open-ended attitude characterized the process from the beginning. The participants did not learn fewer skills. On the contrary, through the shared courage to engage in the academy, each person had the opportunity to develop independently.
People who try something new and break through existing structures can change. The claim to a certain position of power is an obstacle, as well the use of incomprehensible language. Something else would be helpful for a cultural change.
Support is needed for a sustainable science communication. This manifests itself in many ways: Research results from science via SciComm should be included. Science communication should be questioned and analyzed more often. Likewise, it would be good to get financial support. In addition to the recommended framework, there are practical tips. Among them the way how to communicate. A handbook summarizes tools and tips.
The most diverse professional groups work together in SciComm. Bias, but also the hierarchical arrangement in the team can influence communication.
The list of science communication podcasts is long. Almost every organization or institution uses this audio format. How about a common place to start?
When scientists speak directly with citizens, they receive direct information and can ask questions about it. In this way, possible reservations about a research result are classified and can be better addressed in the future. Even though some formats already exist, the dialogue with society in general is not very legitimised by scientific institutions.