Briefly analysed
The #FactoryWisskomm developed “perspectives for action in science communication”. Their significance for university communication was discussed at the annual conference of the Federal Association for University Communication with the panel: “#FactoryWisskomm and now what?”. It was clear to all: science communication needs to be more institutionally anchored. And there needs to be more recognition for science communication. Input could come from countries where science communication is already more advanced. There are units that are specifically responsible for it. Not every researcher has to communicate. It depends on the quality and the right occasion. Nevertheless, communication and public engagement are criteria for hiring, at least for professorships. The next step is to implement the content of the #FactoryWisskomm.
FactoryWisskomm Does every scientist have to communicate? Where is science communication and public engagement institutionally anchored? Representatives from politics, research and journalism discussed this and also what the results of the #FactoryWissKomm mean for university communication.
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) set itself the goal of fundamentally anchoring and professionalizing science communication in the German science system in its policy paper on science communication in the fall of 2019. In the #FactoryWisskomm, around 150 experts, including the heads of the science organizations, worked for ten months in six working groups to develop concrete recommendations for action on the topics of competence building, recognition and reputation, quality, research, and participation and science journalism. These recommendations for action were presented in the summer of 2021. The annual conference of the Federal Association for University Communication took these up with the panel: “#FactoryWisskomm and now what?”. The panelists discussed what the #FactoryWisskomm means for university communication in concrete terms.
The panel included Cordula Kleidt, Head of Science Communication at the BMBF. Julia Wandt, who is responsible at the rectorate level at the Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg for the business unit Strategy Development Science Communication. Thisbe K. Lindhorst, Executive Director at the Otto-Diels-Institute for Organic Chemistry at Kiel University, and Martin Spiewak, journalist at DIE ZEIT in the Knowledge Department. Oliver Häußler, University of Tübingen / grasshopper kreativ moderated the panel.
Science Communication yes, but how?
The panelists agree that science communication must be more firmly anchored in research institutions. But not about the exact implementation. Thisbe Lindhorst is in close contact with scientists. She knows from experience that not everyone is a communications professional: “You have to think about the individual types of researchers.” Chemists, she said, are less likely to think about communicating the question, “What is the role of science and how does it work?” and more likely to promote their research findings. She advocated leaving science communication to those who can do it. Expertise is needed to choose the right formats. The competence to communicate at the right time is also needed, said Martin Spiewak.
Support Scientists
Here’s a question from the audience: “If significantly more researchers are now communicating (assumed well) than before, this reinforces the information overload that already exists. So how do we deal with that? How do we manage quality management?” Julia Wandt responded that reflection is necessary. Communication departments must accompany and support scientists. This also includes thinking about what is appropriate to communicate.
New laws for more recognition
The visions are there. But how can science communication be practically implemented so that it is not an add on for scientists? For Julia Wandt, it is clear that recognition systems must be created – for example, of a financial nature, but this is only one of many fields of action. For another form of recognition – the recognition of science communication in appointment procedures – changes in the law are also needed, according to Julia Wandt. Science communication should also be linked at institutions with their strategic development. In addition to research and teaching, science communication should receive more recognition for the career paths of scientists.
According to Martin Spiewak, competence building is important for this. Scientists should be able to explain their research in two minutes. Then we can look at who is good at what. There are demands (not from the #FactoryWisskomm) that researchers should spend one day a week in dialog with society. According to Martin Spiewak, there is no need for that. Cordula Kleidt noted that not everyone has to do that. She emphasized that public engagement has a great added value for everyone involved.
Communicating for your own reputation
Scientists need support for science communication. In Thisbe Lindhorst’s experience, communication training, for example, is well received. Men, however, are more likely to communicate about their own research. “This sounds very provocative, but men do this for their own reputation.” It would be more appropriate to communicate fundamentally about how science works. That would also strengthen understanding in society and thus democracy.
Thisbe Lindhorst explained that science communication is not yet a criterion when hiring post docs, but it is when filling professorships. No one can afford any longer that science communication and public engagement are not of interest. In response to a question from the audience, Julia Wandt emphasized that engagement in science communication is not a disadvantage for a career in science, quite the contrary. Cordula Kleidt added, “It should not be a contradiction to excellence.” The focus should be on research when making an appointment, said Martin Spiewakand: “Public engagement should play the third role.”
Inspiration from outside
Where could public engagement and science communication be anchored? A model for institutional anchoring can be the UK. Cordula Kleidt reported on Helen Featherstone, who spoke at the First Steps Symposium, a symposium for networking and exchange in public engagement, organized by the Berlin School of Public Engagement and Open Science and grasshopper kreativ. Helen Featherstone shared her experiences there in early September as head of the Public Engagement Unit at the University of Bath.
Wishes for the FactoryWisskomm
Science communication as well as public engagement officers need training. For example, on how to set up formats properly or how to develop a strategy. Can the communications departments do that? Or doesn’t it make more sense to set up a separate unit for this purpose? For Julia Wandt, the interface between science and society is clearly the communications department at the universities.
The wish of all panelists is that public engagement and science communication should be further expanded and that the recommendations for action of the #FactoryWisskomm should be filled with life:
Cordula Kleidt: “The task now is to implement the action perspectives of the #FactoryWisskomm and exchange best practices. In doing so, we also need the countries.”
Julia Wandt: “The next step for the #FactoryWisskomm recommendations for action is their consistent implementation.”
Thisbe Lindhorst: “Science must not lose society. Science communication is fundamental for the future.”
Martin Spiewak: “It must be clear how the #FactoryWisskomm will be implemented. The science communication activities must also be communicated.”