# Presentation: 203812

## 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*

## 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**

## 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

## 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)

## 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

## 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.

## 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

## 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

## 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

## 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

## 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

## 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.

## 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

## Science Communication:Best Practice

- Finding 3 (example)
- Case study:
-                     http://science.nasa.gov

## A Brief History of Science Communications at NASA/Marshall

- 1994

- 1995

- 1996

- 1997

- 1998

- 1999

- Chief Scientist’s
- Science Communications
- Wkg. Group

- Science Communications
- Wkg. Group Strategy
- Document

- Communicate Knowledge
- Process Team

- General Armstrong’s
- CK Report

- New NASA Chief
- Scientist
- NSSTC
- Established

- NASA/MSFC Summer
- Faculty Fellow

- NASA/MSFC Summer
- Faculty Fellow, Initial
- Scicomm Discussions

- Roundtable Established
- Initial Scicomm Activities

- 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.

- 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.

_**A Brief History of Science Communications at NASA/Marshall**_

**Policy/Guidance**

**NASA/Marshall Activities and Progress**

- 1993

_***Science in the Natl. Interest***_

***“******Federal Agencies will encourage research scientists***
***to use their research experiences in support of public***
***understanding of science.”***

## The “Webby” Awards: Class of 1999

- PBS
- On-line

- Yahoo!

- Amazon.com

**Science@NASA**

- Smithsonian
- Magazine

- CNN

- Ebay.com

_**Nominated, Non-Winners:**_
-  Scientific American
-  Wall Street Journal
-  MSNBC
-  New York Times
-  BBC News
-  Federal Express
-  Alta-Vista Translator

## Science Communication:Best Practice

- Finding 4
- 	The active involvement of scientists and engineers is critical to the success of science communication.

## 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*

## 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)

## 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.

## 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.

## 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

## 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

## 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.

## 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.

## 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