Actually, it’s just an anecdote. Actually. Because this anecdote tells us a lot about how we see ourselves, about the basic attitude of research to the topic of science communication.
A call to our agency at the beginning of November: “You make films, don’t you? Can you produce a research film for us? We: “Sure. Gladly. What do you need the film for?” A common research question to find out if the film should be shown at a conference or open house. Whether to document research or appeal to a wider audience. Reportage or animation? Whatever you ask. The answer: “What for? We’ve applied for money for a film and the money has to be spent by the end of the year. Can you do it?”
This anecdote is, of course, a condensate of years of communication with researchers and research institutions. I don’t even want to go into the point that two months is quite sportive to produce a film. Usually, weeks and months pass before a submitted script receives feedback. Or classic: in the middle of the production the researchers come up with an “idea” that could be “integrated”. This is like the idea of redefining the subject groups in Phase III of a clinical trial. Clear agreements and good project management facilitated such a production. No, the inexperience of research institutions when it comes to the effort and duration of media production is not a fundamental problem.
The fundamental problem is the attitude. The attitude that you are only forced to think about science communication when the first results come in or the end of the project is near. What would be desirable? Just recently, Peter Parker – a science communicator based in Austin, Texas and London – spoke to Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication & Future Media at University Salford Manchester, on his Research Comms podcast. And one sentence stuck with me:
“Good Science starts with Communication.”
Good science starts with communication. What does that mean exactly? First, that communication about one’s own research is not an add on. That communication is not an annoying duty that you have to fulfill somehow in EU research applications. And recently, the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education has also demanded this in its policy paper on science communication. No, it means that communication is part of research. That communication enriches research on many levels and makes it better.
It is not about pushing scientists to communicate more. Demands like: Research is funded by taxpayers’ money, so researchers must give back this financial commitment to society in form of science communication, create reluctance, but not passion for communication. We at grasshopperkreativ are not about a “force to communicate”, but about an “inspire to communicate”. We are interested in inspiring and implementing communication in co-creative processes together with scientists.
A lot has happened in the field of science communication in the past 20 years. Countless formats such as Science Slam, Science Pub or Ring a Scientist have been created. Analog formats as well as digital formats. A lot of money has flowed and continues to flow into science communication. Today, scientists can take courses on how to use Twitter, start a blog or set up a podcast. That’s all good and important. But what is missing is a fundamental understanding of how important communication is. Once you understand how essential communication is, you can’t “not”-understand that realization. But if you have learned the 10 most important rules for a blog in a course, you can quickly “un-learn” them.
It is time for science communication to evolve: Move away from thinking solely in terms of formats, products, and projects to “inspire to communicate.” To create an understanding of what fantastic possibilities good communication opens. In which formats, products and projects this inspiration manifests itself is secondary. Similar to research. It’s not just about acquiring knowledge and learning how to analyze data properly. Science is also about inspiration, creativity, the desire to try something new, to experiment.
Our desire at grasshopperkreativ is not to create media products as a service provider for research institutions. Our wish is to develop communication strategies as a communication partner together with research institutions in co-creative processes – and to implement them sustainably.
We grasshoppers are also “inspired to communicate” and therefore want to tell you at regular intervals about the “World of Wisskomm”. Insights and findings. New things we have discovered. Tried and tested things that we find important. Analyses, opinions, tips, tools and best practices. Everything can be there.
We look forward to a co-creative exchange with you.