Off the cuff, science communication means translating research content through media and with a high degree of intelligibility. In other words, you explain science in such a way that non-scientists understand what this particular science aims to do or what the research results mean. Your choice of media and form – let’s call it the shape of your media – should be governed by what you want to communicate. Classical media shapes are texts, fotos, videos, info graphics, animations, virtual spaces or a combination of shapes. Social media and digital platforms are important spaces for science communication.
Science is exciting, interesting, challenging and sometimes also entertaining. Good science communication gets all of that across. The challenge is to shape the content in such a way that people actually like to take it in. That includes where they take it in, so where the people are active online, including Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, brochures, as multi-media-stories, in exhibits, and so on.
Great science communication also encourages people to interact with scientists. The users can and should have fun engaging with science. A piece’s emotional aspect and its connection to someone’s everyday life, helps to transport the information better.
An example from one of our courses: a scientist explained that she was doing basic research on age and movement. Well, alright. Then she shared what made her go into that area of research:
“My grandma lived in fear. Fear of moving around. Fear of falling. Fear of what might happen after a fall. She didn’t leave the house anymore. Practically a prisoner in her own home. With my research I want to help us better understand how movement works for old people and what we can do to help them move better. So they won’t have to go through the same ordeal as my grandma.”
Everyone has a Grandma or a Grandpa. Everyone know what being afraid feels like. On a simple human level, we understand what motivates this scientists and why her work is important.
Another thing this example shows us: science communication can give access not only to results, but also to the framework of working in science. Including how you get into it, how scientists work, how scientific works or entire fields come into being, the decision between employment in science or industry, failed endeavors and more. In other words, science communication is also an opportunity to talk about the things that science usually does not talk about.
By communicating both factual knowledge and the way this knowledge came about in thought and deed, science communication helps to increase acceptance for scientific work and products.
Show the people behind the research
Active science communication shows that scientists are no anonymous drones that sit around in labs. They are real people with neighbors, friends and family.
When you want to strengthen your personal brand – as a researcher, speaker, analyst, expert, author, scientific advisor and more – you won’t get around science communication.
It allows scientists to increase their knowledge and that of their peers and to impact society, showing how relevant science is to our society.
When scientists communicate well, transparently and long-term, they create understanding for their work and the scientific process. The more scientists facilitate interaction with society at large, the more successful science communication will be. Users see: “fake science” is the rare exception to the rule. The phrase has been cropping up in debates since Donald Trump has started using it to discredit studies that do not fit into his world view or politics. “Fake science” suggests that scientific results are not authentic, that they have been faked on purpose. By communicating clearly you can show how results come about and can refute such allegations.
They show: scientists are people that want to know more about a specific part of our world. People, that want to do good, that have integrity, that want to help, not trick and that want to advance society’s goals.
The difference between science communication and science journalism
We understand science journalism as a part of science communication.
Science communication every space, wherein science communicates and is communicated. This includes PR, for example from university press offices or companies, as well as journalism. The latter usually thinks of itself as a corrective to PR and the scientific establishment.
When scientists themselves communicate parts of their research or initiate such communication through others, the scientists perform neither PR nor journalism, but just communication. The researcher does not represent a client’s or investor’s interest. Rather, he or she communicates individually and authentically. Ideally, they add passion and a sense for their audience.
It is important to also communicate the scientific process, the system of science in all its facets. Good science communication starts with the idea, not in medias res. That is how researchers have found collaborators and test persons.