SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ROADMAP

1. SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ROADMAP NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 2-3, 2000 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA RICK E. BORCHELT SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY rborchelt@nasw.org

2. Research Roadmap for the Communication of Science and Technology in the 21st Century (R2) • Initially chartered by NASA/George C. Marshall Space Flight Center • 3-year charter beginning in 1998 • Focus 1: Set a research agenda for S&T communication • Focus 2: Identify and articulate “best practices” in public communication of S&T from (mostly U.S.) research institutions • NASA funding stream intermittent to nonexistent

3. Science Communication Research • Reviewed the existing literature • Noted considerable disconnect between science communication literature, diffusion of innovation literature, and health communication literature • Identified FIVE priority areas for research funding

4. Science Communication Research -- Funding Priorities (1) Relationship (if any) between science communication, science literacy, and science advocacy (2) Understand the interests/behaviors of the consuming publics (audience analysis) (3)Understand the PIO-researcher-reporter nexus (game theory)

5. Science Communication Research -- Funding Priorities (4) Determine common ground between health/behavior communication and science communication per se (5) Determine common ground with diffusion of innovation/ag extension research efforts

6. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 1 There is no such thing as a “general audience” for S&T communication -- there are many people with many different uses for S&T information, and many levels of understanding with which to deal.

7. Science Communcation:Best Practice Finding 1 (corollaries) • Multiplicity of new media channels makes mass communication very difficult • Traditional public relations models stress an outmoded, one-way “mediated” approach • Little focus on building new audiences rather than serving presumed existing audiences

8. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 2 The scientific community and managers of the science enterprise routinely fail to distinguish between understanding of science and appreciation for science and its benefits

9. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 2 (corollaries) • Communication programs that emphasize institutional advancement often are touted as programs that communicate science -- the goals of these two kinds of programs are not necessarily complementary • Metrics -- where they exist -- are usually reflections of the former, not the latter

10. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 2 (more corollaries) • Collaboration is essential to the process of science and to effective science communication, but collaboration dilutes institutional advancement goals

11. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 2 (example) • Communication of failure is essential to public understanding of science, but generally regarded as anathema to institutional advancement

12. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 3 The myriad of audience needs and interests should drive public communication of S&T. Communication should not be driven by the research enterprise’s desires about what it believes publics should know.

13. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 3 (corollaries) • Scientists have an obligation to understand publics and their needs if communication is to be effective • Mutual respect between communicators and scientists (with joint veto over communication products and messages) is essential

14. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 3 (example) • Case study: http://science.nasa.gov

15. A Brief History of Science Communications at NASA/Marshall Policy/Guidance “Federal Agencies will encourage research scientists to use their research experiences in support of public understanding of science.” 1993 Science in the Natl. Interest 1994 Chief Scientist’s Science Communications Wkg. Group NASA/Marshall Activities and Progress 1995 Science Communications Wkg. Group Strategy Document NASA/MSFC Summer Faculty Fellow NASA/MSFC Summer Faculty Fellow, Initial Scicomm Discussions 1996 1997 Communicate Knowledge Process Team Roundtable Established Initial Scicomm Activities 1998 C.A. in Science Communications established, 1.5 Graduate Students, Research, First Research Publications in Scicomm, External Working Group Begins, NASA/MSFC Cited as “Best NASA Practice,” beginning of work for entire Center not just science area. General Armstrong’s CK Report 1999 New NASA Chief Scientist NSSTC Established Webby Award, C.A. in Science Communications, 3 Graduate Students, Sponsored Research, External Working Group Continues, National “Best Practice” conference call for papers, National Scicomm Research Conference planning, Work for other NASA centers, exploration into commercial/industry partnerships. Evaluation of the role of science communications in the NSSTC.

16. The “Webby” Awards: Class of 1999 PBS On-line Smithsonian Magazine • Nominated, Non-Winners: • Scientific American • Wall Street Journal • MSNBC • New York Times • BBC News • Federal Express • Alta-Vista Translator Yahoo! CNN Amazon.com Ebay.com Science@NASA

17. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 4 The active involvement of scientists and engineers is critical to the success of science communication.

18. Science Communication:Best Practices Finding 4 (corollaries) • How scientists are integrated into communication will vary with the institution and the interests of the power elite -- there is no cookbook model

19. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 4 (more corollaries) • While science communicators may excel at communicating products, scientists are best communicators of process (and best practice demands both) • Communication techniques must be integrated across training in scientific and technical disciplines (i.e., writing across the curriculum initiatives)

20. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 4 (more corollaries) • Rewards and incentives for public communication by scientists are virtually nonexistent at the institution level. • Media training for scientists is uneven and often poorly conceptualized. The best kind of media training emphasizes respect for the culture of journalism rather than “quick-fix” abilities to speak to reporters.

21. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 5 Science communicators who can foster mutual respect between science and the media also are essential to effective public communication of science.

22. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 5 (corollaries) • The mix of science-to-media skills for a science communicator varies with the institution and its objectives • Access to the institution’s power elite is absolutely critical to success

23. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 5 (more corollaries) • Successful skills as a science communicator/PIO are best learned through strong mentoring programs and often are institution-specific

24. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 6 The impact of new media and the fragmentation of existing media will have profound impacts on how and with whom we communicate about science and technology.

25. Science Communication:Best Practice Finding 6 (corollaries) • Science communication/public info programs that define success as entrée to the evening news already are dinosaurs -- based on a 1940’s model of information flow. • The convergence period for transition to new media will occur over the next 5-10 years.

26. Science Communication:Best Practice If you remember nothing else from this presentation: Better public understanding of S&T is a defensible goal in and of itself in a democratic society, whether or not such familiarity leads to better public advocacy for funding of research