Transcript Communicating Science to the

Science communication

Continuum
 Scientific communication with peers
 Popularising science
M. Bucchi: Science and the Media. A continuity model, ”stages”
Erkki Karvonen 2010
M. Bucchi: Science and the Media.
A continuity model, ”stages”
The traditional paradigm of science
communication

Linear transfer model of communication
 Information transfered as such from the sender to
the receiver

Deficit model
 ”Empty bucket”

Strong hierarchy
 Peer communication is most important
The critical paradigm of science
communication
Communication is interaction, dialogue
between all stakeholders
 Science contributes to the problems of
the world and society

 Science as a part of society
Public engagement in science and
technology
 Open access

Erkki Karvonen 2010
Science communication with
peers
Science is self regulating, public regime
 Collegial: no hierarchy in knowledge
 Shared world view, mutual vocabulary and
terms
 No simplification is needed

What can the scientist contribute?
 Discussing, disagreeing with fellow scientists

Science communication with peers
Personal discussions
 Conferense presentations
 Posters
 Social media
 Peer reviewed articles / monographs

Importance of social media for
peer communication
Popularizing science
Popular science communication: science
as a part of society
 To general public, but also to representatives
of the other fields of science
 To politicians and decicion makers
 Attitudes vary in different fields of science

Popularizing science

Newspaper and magazine articles, radioand TV-programs

Public lectures, TED-talks

Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube
 two-way communication

Vocabulary, terms
Why popularize science?





To prevent hostility and distrust towards
science and scientists
To show where the tax payers’ money are
used
To make science more appealing
Well informed citizens raise the level of
discussion
Economic advantage
Jane Gregory and Steve Miller (2000). Science in
public. Communication, culture, and credibility
Responsibility, necessity or
priviledge to popularise?

Would I be the best expert?
 Do I dare to say something?

Do I want to have an impact?
 Idealism

Is it worth of time and effort?
 Expertise, career building
As a PhD student, you know about your
topic more than 99,9 % of the public!
(Prime minister: ”I’d rather listen to a diplomat from the
foreign ministry than to a university researcher”)
Science vs. media

Paradox: “The time of research is measured as
months and years, the time of media as hours and
minutes” (Mustajoki 2012, 45)

Scientist must follow GOOD SCIENTIFIC
PRACTISE:
”…honesty, caution and precision in research, recording
data, analyses and presenting results as well as in
assessing the results…”

Journalist follows THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR
JOURNALIST
 Educated guess is well enough: appreciates brief and
certain answer
Science vs. media

Journalist wants an interesting,
entertaining, humane story

Scientist wants to present the facts
At best a fruitful symbiosis!
Home work

Make a communications strategy for
your PhD project!


To whom, where, when, how
In the end of your project, welcome to
the course
Communicating science to the media,
general public and decicion makers (1 cr)
- press release