2004
Volume 49, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Abstract

This article gives an overview of five major challenges in the field of science communication – with a focus on the Dutch/Flemish situation and the role that communication scientists can play in tackling these challenges.

  1. The research field is fragmented and the balance between the practical and academic aspects of science communication can be improved.
  2. In policies there is a large emphasis on society, whilst science communication should also be a dialogue society.
  3. Connecting with society is the third mission of universities, but reward systems for scientists who do this are rudimentary and should be improved.
  4. Incorrect science news is at least partly caused by universities sending out exaggerated press releases. Researchers should take responsibility for how their own universities communicate about their work.
  5. Social sciences and humanities are underrepresented both in science communication activities and science communication research and should be involved more.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVC2021.2.005.SMEE
2021-01-01
2021-07-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R. C., Challenger, A., Bratton, L., Boivin, J., Bott, L., Powell, G., Williams, A., Chambers, C. D., & Sumner, P.(2019). Claims of causality in health news: A randomised trial. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 91.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Buhse, S., Rahn, A. C., Bock, M., & Mühlhauser, I.(2018). Causal interpretation of correlational studies – Analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0196833.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cagan, R.(2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869-870.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Costa, E. & Villa, R.(2020). Science communication education in Europe. CARTO. https://questproject.eu/where-are-science-communication-courses-in-europe
  5. Engelshoven, I. van. (2019). Nieuwsgierig en betrokken. De waarde van wetenschap. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken.
  6. Entradas, M., Bauer, M. W., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., Besley, J., Massarani, L., Russo, P., Dudo, A., Saracino, B., Silva, C., Kano, K., Amorim, L., Bucchi, M., Suerdem, A., Oyama, T., & Li, Y.-Y.(2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0235191.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerber, A., Metcalfe, J., Broks, P., Lorke, J., Gabriel, M., & Lorenz, L.(2020). Science communication research: An empirical field analysis [Government report]. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
  8. Guenther, L., & Joubert, M.(2017). Science communication as a field of research: Identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(02), A02.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Heyl, A., Joubert, M., & Guenther, L.(2020). Churnalism and hype in science communication: Comparing university press releases and journalistic articles in South Africa. Communicatio, 46(2), 126-145.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hooykaas, M. J. D., Schilthuizen, M., Aten, C., Hemelaar, E. M., Albers, C. J., & Smeets, I.(2019). Identification skills in biodiversity professionals and laypeople: A gap in species literacy. Biological Conservation, 238, 108202.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jensen, E.(2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), C04.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y.(2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527-541.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kleinhans, M., Verbeek, P.-P., & Putten, M. van der. (2012). Tussen onderzoek en samenleving: Aanbevelingen voor optimale wetenschapscommunicatie. https://knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/tussen-onderzoek-en-samenleving
  14. Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit. (2019). LOWI Advies 2019, nr. 22. Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit. https://lowi.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LOWI-advies_2019-22.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lendering, J.(2012). De klad in de klassieken,. Athenaeum.
  16. Martinez-Conde, S.(2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect?Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077-2082.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mooney, C. C.(2010). Do scientists understand the public?American Academy of Arts and Sciences Cambridge, MA.
  18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press.
  19. NeFCA. (2019). Science communication as boundary space for negotiation. NeFCA.
  20. Nelles, J., & Vorley, T.(2010). From policy to practice: Engaging and embedding the third mission in contemporary universities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7/8), 341-353.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. NWO. (2020). Ruim 1 miljoen euro voor nieuwe impuls wetenschapscommunicatie. NWO.
  22. Schat, J., Bossema, F. G., Numans, M. E., Smeets, I., & Burger, P.(2018). Overdreven gezondheidsnieuws. Relatie tussen overdrijving in academische persberichten en in nieuwsmedia. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 162(5).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., & Brossard, D.(2020). How not to lose the COVID-19 communication war. Issues in Science and Technology. https://issues.org/covid-19-communication-war
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K.(2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Smeets, I.(2016). Enige beschouwingen over de waarde der wetenschapscommunicatie [Oratie, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden]. www.ionica.nl/oratie-universiteit-leiden
  26. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & Chambers, C. D.(2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349, g7015.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Dam, F., de Bakker, L., Dijkstra, A. M., & Jensen, E. A. (Red.) (2020). Science communication: An introduction. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/11541
  28. Van Gerven, D., Land-Zandstra, A., & Damsma, W.(2018). Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appearances in their appreciation of museum objects. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 325-339.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Verkade, A.(2017). Beoordelingsinstrument wetenschapscommunicatie. Rathenau Instituut.
  30. Vogler, D., & Schäfer, M. S.(2020). Growing influence of university pr on science news coverage? A longitudinal automated content analysis of university media releases and newspaper coverage in Switzerland, 2003-2017. International Journal of Communication, 14, 22.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wynne, B.(1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A.Irwin & B.Wynne (Red.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19-46). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zarkadakis, G.(2010). FameLab: A talent competition for young scientists. Science Communication, 32(2), 281-287.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVC2021.2.005.SMEE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVC2021.2.005.SMEE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error