TRAINEE NOTES

The ESConet Modules Trainee Notes are free to use under Creative Commons. They were produced by the European Science Communication Workshops project funded by the Framework 6 programme of the European Union and implemented by the European Science Communication network (ESConet) training programme funded by Framework 7 Grant Agreement Number 230456.

Please acknowledge ESConet – www.esconet.org - when using these modules.

Please email Steve Miller – s.miller@ucl.ac.uk - to acknowledge use of these modules and to enquire about updates.

Module Content

A risk society

Science does not always give clear and unambiguous answers while it is in the process of construction. This type of science – science-in-the-making – is the science that ordinary citizens are most likely to encounter under conditions where they really do need to know what is going on. Often, there is an element of risk that adds an immediacy and urgency to the public understanding of what is happening. On other occasions, the science is certain – this is ready-made science – but the communication of this ready-made science using technical scientific information alone is not likely to address the public’s potential fears or concerns or queries about the scientific issue in question. In his book Risk Society (1992) the German sociologist Ulrich Beck is one among several authors who has sought to characterise risk as an inevitable part of modern society, related to the increasing impact of science and technology on people’s lives.

The naïve model of risk versus socio-cultural values

One view of risk communication can be collectively called the “naïve model” of risk communication. In this model, scientists identify a problem, put in place a potential solution, inform politicians and then policy action follows automatically – following rational logic. If this fails, it is the fault of media misrepresentation and ignorance of political policy-makers because the media have transferred invalid or incorrect scientific or technical information to an irrational public.

However, Beck and others have said that this view is wrong and merely transferring scientific conceptions of risk, such as mortality or morbidity rates, will not address public concerns. This is because the public understands risks intuitively using a broad range of non-scientific, value-filled, psychological, emotional and cultural criteria.

Factors affecting public perception of risk

The following eleven factors that affect how a risk is perceived by the public are compiled from published risk communication research. Experts call these factors outrage factors, and formulated the following equation for describing how risk is calculated: RISK = HAZARD + OUTRAGE. The factors are:

COMMUNICATING RISK

1. Voluntary or Imposed?

A voluntary risk is more acceptable than an imposed risk. Actively choosing a risk makes people less upset than if they had no choice. For some, the risk is part of the thrill of an activity, like riding a motorcycle.

2. Control or Lack of Control?

People feel better when they are in control of a potentially risky situation. For example, people feel safer driving than they do in the passenger seat, or they feel safer driving compared to flying.

3. Fairness or Equity

People who endure greater risks than their neighbours, without access to greater benefits, are naturally angry, and perceive a hazard as being more threatening. For example, community groups arguing against the construction of a waste incinerator in their locality feel they suffer greater risks for no extra benefit.

4. Trust and Credibility

People do not feel they have the expertise to distinguish risks, but they feel they can tell trustworthy sources from untrustworthy ones. Sources of information that are perceived to be lying are untrustworthy, as are sources that have a beneficial interest in communicating certain messages about a hazard. This makes the public view the hazard as more risky. For example, the controversy on the environmental and health issues surrounding apples sprayed with the pesticide Alar in 1989 in the US is a significant and well-studied case study in the history of risk communication. In this case, the Natural Resources Defence Council (NDRC) said that eating Alar-laden apples increased a child’s risk of developing cancer. Apple sales plummeted, but the US Environmental Protection Agency responded, accusing the NDRC of basing its study on poor data. The manufacturer of Alar and the apple growers’ association had poor credibility with the public.

5. Responsiveness

Does the government or company or health agency that imposes the risk, or who says it is trivial, seem concerned or arrogant? Does it respond quickly?

6. Morally Acceptable or Morally Unacceptable?

Risk communicators must take into account the moral dimension to a risk. Some risks remain immoral even when they are not harmful. Blake cites the use of the term “acceptable levels of contamination” (1995 p124) as being morally unacceptable nowadays.

7. Familiarity or Newness

Exotic hazards are viewed with greater risk than familiar ones: waste from an incineration plant, for example, is sometimes viewed as more of a risk compared to

smoking. Compare, as another example, the fear of contracting a human form of bird flu with the risk catching a more common, but potentially lethal, common flu.

8. Natural or Artificial?

Natural hazards are viewed as being less risky than artificial ones. Naturally-occurring radon, for example, does not cause as much outrage compared to fears of exposure to nuclear radiation.

9. Certainty or Uncertainty?

In a situation involving science-in-the-making, where the science and the potential risks are uncertain, scholars and experts argue that this uncertainty should be acknowledged in risk communication. If this uncertainty is not addressed, it can contribute to a lack of trust or credibility in institutions or individuals. This has been explored using the example of BSE in Europe, particularly in the UK, where the disease affected significantly Britain’s cattle in the early 1990s.

Risk, by definition, involves uncertainty for individuals:

The distribution of risk - who is affected, and by whom? The immediacy of risk - long term or short term? The avoidance of risk - upstream or downstream? The choice of risk - voluntary or forced? Informal reasoning – is scientific logic more convincing than a trustworthy

network of friends and family?

10. Memorable Events

A memorable accident can make risks easy to imagine for decades: the risk of exposure to radiation from a nuclear reactor meltdown is affected by the memory of Chernobyl, for example, which occurred in 1986.

11. Dread

Some illnesses inspire more dread and fear than others: compare cancer or AIDS with emphysema or how the risk of eating beef is affected by the dread engendered by the fear of dying from vCJD.

Factors in Communication of Risk

Risk needs translating, in three different forms:

translation into a sequence of events - unfolding, inevitability; translation into everyday experiences - relevance, alarm; translation into concrete action - intervention, blame, solution.

Further Reading

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2004. Handling uncertainty in scientific advice. (POSTnote 220).

Sandman, P. 1987. Risk communication: facing public outrage. EPA J. 13 (9), p 21.

Sandman, P. and Lanard, J. 2005. Bird Flu: Communicating the Risk. Perspectives on Health. 10 (2), pp2-9

Module Content

History of Science Centres

Francis Bacon – approximately four centuries ago – was credited with being the first to create the concept of a practical museum for science approximately four centuries ago and is a distant ancestor of what has been called the science centre movement (Rennie and McClafferty 1999). Science centres in the UK have been placed within the broader tradition of bringing science to the public, dating back to the early 19th century, that was undertaken by scientific organisations such as the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Institution, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum, founded in 1857. In the early 19th century, Sir Humphry Davy refined the scientific demonstration into a theatrical art at London’s Royal Institution, where he and fellow chemist Michael Faraday used this institution’s platform to demonstrate their discoveries, creating a national awareness that took their work beyond the realm of narrow academia (Beetlestone et al 1998).

The historical roots of science museums are also linked to the ideas of René Descartes. Centres can be traced back to the Great World Exhibitions that presented the latest technical and industrial achievements of their time, a motivation that was often driven by nationalism (Salmi 2003). Since then, science centres have had important role in informal science education throughout the world and their number has grown dramatically over the past four decades. Science centres have been established in more and more cities following the pioneering examples of the Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, both of which were opened in 1969 (Beetlestone et al 1998).

Is a Science Centre a Museum?

Science centres aim to communicate science to lay audiences, but vary in their methods of presentation. Museums and science centres have a number of exhibits, usually arranged in permanent or temporary exhibitions. A science centre contains mostly hands-on, interactive exhibits. Most science centres, to date, have had classical physics as their central theme, and have had school children, aged from seven to eleven, and families, as their main target groups. Examples of these types of centre include the Children's Museum in Boston http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/ and Techniquest in Cardiff (http://www.techniquest.org/). Other centres also attempt to attract regular adult visitors: for example, Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley (http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/) and Microcosm at CERN in Geneva (http://outreach.web.cern.ch/outreach/en/Exhibitions/Microcosm-en.html) .

HANDS-ON SCIENCE

Science Centres in Europe

Science museums and centres in Europe range from the very small to the very large. By the late 1990s, there were 40 attractions in Britain that could be classified as science centres, 24 of which have less than 40,000 visitors each year. But the four biggest centres in Europe – the Science Museum (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/), the Natural History Museum in London (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/), the Cité des Sciences in Paris (http://www.cite-sci ences.fr ), and the Deutsches Museum in Munich (http://www.deutsches-museum.de/) – each have well over a million visitors every year. For example, the Science Museum in London had 1.6 million visitors in 1996. The Science Museum contains historical collections, galleries and exhibitions, relating to science, technology and medicine, but also contemporary interactive exhibits. In France, leading organisations include Palais de la Découverte, founded in 1937, and the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie opened in 1986 and which now has approximately 3.5m visitors annually (Beetlestone et al 1998).

Many of Europe’s science museums and centres, as well as charities and other organisations concerned with exhibiting science, are grouped into an organisation known as ECSITE (http://www.ecsite.net/new/) the European Network of Science Centres and Museums. ECSITE’s website has an interactive map of Europe, which enables visitors to the site to see how many ECSITE centres and museums are to be found in each country, and where they are to be found. This is clearly not a complete list, as not every centre or museum that is eligible for ECSITE membership actually belongs. But the membership is fairly comprehensive, and gives a good indication of the relative level of activity on a country-by-country basis.

Characteristics of Science Centres

1. Science Centres are Key Sites for Informal Science Learning

Science centres have different characteristics from museums, principally in their focus. Museums contain objects of value, while science centres, in contrast, “aim to both enlighten and entertain through contemporary, participatory exhibits” (Rennie and McClafferty, 1999, p63). Science centres have gone through three historical permutations and contemporary centres are categorised as being part of the third generation, concerned with “representing ideas rather than objects” (ibid p62). Science centres aim, not to teach, but to motivate: they have an “informal science mission” (Beetlestone 1998, p11). The teaching style is informal; it is not formal or didactic. The term ‘edutainment’ has been used to describe science centres. Science centres show ideas and concepts, not just objects. The exhibits are interactive and participatory, with visitors handling and exploring the actual exhibits. Criticisms of science centres stress that the ‘edutainment’ delivered by the exhibits hinders or harms or interferes with the learning of real science (Rennie and McClafferty, 1999).

2. Science Centres Have a Thematic Structure

A persuasive view of science centre content states that the exhibits should be arranged under a common theme, rather than giving a mixed assembly of different exhibits. Some thematic exhibitions were outlined by Bradburne (1998), including: The Body

in the Library where forensic science was explained in the context of a murder mystery; Beyond the Naked Eye, where medical case studies were used to discuss medical imaging technologies; and Mine Games, where earth sciences were discussed using the example of the mining industry.

3. Science Centre Design is Crucial

Beetlestone et al. (1998, p10) note that science centres create an environment aimed at stimulating learning through having “a relaxed, open atmosphere, conveying the message that ‘there is something special and worthy of attention here’, while remaining friendly and unintimidating”.

4. Science Centres Can Offer Further Education

Science centres are for Salmi (2003, p261) a “learning laboratory” in that they provide opportunities for visitors to learn scientific ideas through using interactive exhibitions and where informal science education occurs outside the school curriculum.

Essential Elements of Successful Science Centre Exhibits

A well-designed and conceptualized exhibit is part of large exhibition that has been created around a single theme. It should also have a clever interactive experiment, which should be handled by two people. In addition, the following seven characteristics are essential to a successful exhibit:

1. It must be safe, secure and sturdy2. It must be meaningful and interactive3. It must attract, and hold, attention4. It must be part of a theme5. It must be fun and educational6. It should, preferably, be open-ended7. It should encourage communication

More explicitly, exhibition designers have been advised to communicate the following key issues:

“who are the target audience? how will each section of the target audience be catered for? what prior knowledge, interests and motivations are being assumed? how should objects, text, graphics and audio-visuals be used? What are the key messages of the exhibition? What are the learning goals of the exhibition?”

(Graham and Gammon, 1999, p96)

Further Readings

Beetlestone, J.G., Johnson, C.H., Quin, M and White, H. 1998. The Science Centre Movement: contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science. 7, pp 5-26.

Bradburne, J.M. 1998. Dinosaurs and white elephants: the science centre in the twenty-first century. Public Understanding of Science. 7, pp 237-253.

Graham, J and Gammon, B. 1999. Putting learning at the heart of exhibition development: A case study of the Wellcome Wing project IN: Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E., and Yates, S. (eds.) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels. Routledge: London.

Rennie, N. and McClafferty, T. 1999. Science Centres and Science Learning IN: Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E., and Yates, S. (eds.) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels. Routledge: London.

Salmi, H. 2003. Science Centres as Learning Laboratories: experiences of Heureka, the Finnish Science Centre. International Journal of Technology Management. 25 (5), pp 460-476.

Module Content

Features of Media Coverage of Science: Beyond the Stereotypes

New scientific knowledge is disseminated within the scientific community primarily through peer-reviewed journal articles, but the rest of society becomes informed largely through the mass media. The type of science that appears in the popular media is often different from that presented in scientific journals or in textbooks used in formal educational settings. The mass media are a major intermediary between the scientific community and the general public, especially with respect to recent scientific findings. Even people who pursue a career in science or technology cannot follow the primary literature for all scientific disciplines. We all rely to some extent on journalists to keep us informed of advances in the scientific community.

The circuit of mass communication is characterized as a dynamic, organic, continuously moving system, within which four sets of actors (the public, media, social and political institutions, and decision-makers) interact to influence the content, production and reception of media coverage (Miller 1999). In considering the shaping influences on media, the following factors have to be taken into consideration:

Forms of ownership Degree of concentration of ownership Political and legal regulation Internal control structures

When it comes to characterizing individual media, these factors are also in play:

Market orientation Tradition and ethos Professional values Recruitment and training of professional staff

Theorists analyse the mass media from different perspectives. Some look at the construction of media images. Others look at their consumption. More examine the economic organisation of media industries. And yet more focus on the interplay between financial and organisational factors in media outlets and their effect on discourses and representations that enter the public domain.

One view of media performance says the mass media should serve the public interest. Mass media outlets should ensure the information that they put into the public sphere serves the general welfare of the entire society, not just some sectors. This notion of service of the public interest is linked to the core values of democratic society:

HOW MEDIA COVER SCIENCE

freedom (free access to information); equality (equality of access to media to air views and grievances); and order (public stability maintained through public communication).

Some argue that the media should act as a watchdog over the government, revealing abuses and discussing the functioning of the state. In this, the media represent the public, giving them access to a range of values and perspectives in entertainment and current affairs.

Media analyses from a left-wing perspective focus on the ownership and control of the media, saying media corporations and advertisers mould media production to their own interests, resulting in their domination of the cultural landscape and public sphere. Journalists frequently contest this view. They point to powerful countervailing influences within media organisations that reduce the owner’s power to shape coverage: the need for audience credibility, political legitimacy, the self-image and professional practices of journalists, as well as public support for journalistic independence.

What are the Main Effects of the Media?

The study of mass media assumes that the content of media has some effect in the audiences it reaches. Beyond saying that the media provide images and vocabulary, and subjects for people to talk about, it is difficult to know – and it has proven difficult to study – what exactly those audience effects are. Researchers have tried to examine whether and how the audience receives or resists dominant political or cultural values conveyed through the media. School, home and friends are all acknowledged as additional influences, but their precise contribution is difficult to quantify. Of particular interest in the context of science communication is the measurement of the effects of public health or science awareness campaigns conducted through the media. Despite an enormous volume of research in the area, the debate on media effects remains unresolved.

Are The Media Not Interested in Science?

The coverage of science in the mass media is at once highly selective and highly uniform. It is ‘selective’ in the sense that the vast majority of available scientific information is necessarily excluded and that some areas of science receive much more prominence than others, and in the sense that there are significant variations in the overall amount of science coverage carried by different media. It is highly uniform in the sense that the same kinds of science tend to become news in different media, and the relative prominence of different types of science varies little across different media. Selection of science-related topics for coverage is often linked to novelty or discovery, but also to factors such as current social or political issues, or natural and environmental catastrophes.

Is Media Coverage of Science Predominantly Negative?

Scientists often complain that journalists do not describe the “real” scientific work, but rather present an exaggerated, often alarmist, negative image of science (Schnabel 2003). But there is also a tendency in the media to report about science in a very positive, even ecstatic way. In fact, there are two types of exaggeration: scientists are either described as heroic figures that bring “God’s formula” down to earth or they are portrayed as some form of fallen angel, whose science has turned into something evil and frightening—which is the devil’s contribution to the story of scientific glory.

When Does Science Become ‘News’?

News is a construction of the social reality which the media and their audiences inhabit. This construction is necessarily partial, and sometimes partisan. Not everything that the media know about can be fitted into the frame of a half-hour news programme on TV, or the pages of a daily newspaper. As detailed in the Media Writing module, the criteria by which the stories available to the media are sorted and sifted to produce elements of news are known as news values. These include: threshold; meaningfulness, relevance, and consonance; co-option and composition; frequency, unexpectedness, and continuity; competition; unambiguity and negativity; facts, sources and reliability; elitism and personalisation. Factors making an event or piece of information newsworthy are outlined by De Semir (1998).

The news-making criteria with regard to science are the same, broadly speaking, as those in relation to other aspects of social reality, but the application of these criteria is different. So, a judgement may be made in favour of including a certain story on the basis of its relevance within science, as well as to the wider population, and/or on the basis of the scale of the particular piece of science, as measured in the number and importance of the institutions involved. The association of big-name institutions and big-name journals with a particular piece of scientific information may be among the most significant of factors influencing its selection as ‘news’.

Increasingly, scientific information is provided to the media with ‘information subsidies’ that favour its further usage. Public relations professionals employed in, or on behalf of, scientific institutions know how to make information more usable by the media, and facilitate journalists in their search for additional details, images, interviews, and so on.

Biomedical science has come to dominate science news in recent decades, as shown in studies covering several different countries (cf. Universidad Pompeu Fabra University yearly studies; Bauer 1998; Bucchi and Mazzolini 2003; Dimopoulos and Koulaidis 2002). This tendency reflects the application of news values of (social) relevance, the increasing concern in advanced (and ageing) societies with matters of public and personal health, and the public relations effort made by institutional and commercial interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors.

Do Scientists and Scientific Institutions Shape Media Coverage of Science?

Studies have shown that scientists dislike science coverage in the press and particularly in the popular press. Often underlying their criticism is a view that the function of the media is to render faithfully, with the minimum necessary degree of

simplification, the procedures and the findings of science. But such media criticism may also be self-serving: scientists may, consciously or unconsciously, be seeking to perpetuate and extend their exclusive control of the flow of scientific information by insisting on a particular code for media treatment of science.

The interaction between science and the media can be represented as a dynamic process between two professional cultures, the cultures of journalism and science, both of which mediate science (Peters 1995). However, it should be noted that the production of science news can involve a much larger number of actors, including public relations companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), politicians, members of the public and private companies. As Miller argues,

“The mediation of science is a complex phenomenon which involves a large number of contending and co-operating social factors and groups. These include institutions and corporations, media organisations, a range of publics, and policy, cultural and political outcomes.” (1999, p208).

Why do Scientists and Journalists Often Misunderstand Each Other?

Scientists and scientific institutions regularly mediate scientific information for a wide variety of audiences, including journalists. The results of this process of mediation can be unpredictable. There are numerous examples of scientists claiming that they or their scientific research have been misrepresented in the media because journalists do not understand the content or implications of the science they are reporting. By the same token, journalists can be frustrated that scientists do not communicate in a language which is suitable for a lay audience.

One way of dealing with these issues of transmission, transfer, translation or transformation, as they are variously called, has been for the media to employ specialist science journalists. The specialism known as science journalism that developed in the United States from the 1950s and in Europe from the 1970s has been strongly influenced by the idea that the function of media is to transmit scientific information as faithfully as possible. The fact that many of these specialists have come from a background in natural sciences has contributed to this. However, as science journalism has become ‘normalised’ within journalism, and as reporting of science has diffused into many areas of the media, the more common understandings of journalism as an independent and necessarily questioning activity have come to prevail.

References

Bauer, M. 1998. The medicalization of science news – from the Rocket-Scalpel to the Gene-Meteorite Complex. Social Science Information. 37, pp731-751.

Bucchi, M., Mazzolini, R. 2003. Big science, little news: science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science. 12 (1), pp7-24.

De Semir, V. 1998. What is newsworthy? The Lancet. 347, pp1163-1166

Dimopoulos, K. and Koulaidis, V. 2002. The socio-epistemic onstitution of science and technology in the Greek press: an analysis of its presentation. Public Understanding of Science. 11, 225-241.

Miller, D. 1999. Mediating science – promotional strategies, media coverage, public belief and decision making IN: Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E. and Yates, S. (Eds.) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels. Routledge in association with the Open University: London.

Peters H.P. 1995. The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media Culture & Society. 17, pp31-48.

Pompeu Fabra University yearly study of coverage of biomedicine issues in the Spain daily press (1996 to 2007). These reports can be downloaded from: http://www.upf.edu/occ

Schnabel, U. 2003. God’s formula and the Devil’s contribution: science in the press. Public Understanding of Science, 12, pp255-259.

Module Content

Why communicate via the mass media

Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by editorial coverage in the press, or on TV and radio, brings a number of benefits. These media reach very large audiences. Moreover, the credibility of your messages is enhanced by a public perception of media impartiality. Why preparing a press release is a worthwhile exercise

Most of the information that the media present to their audiences is based on information they have received in more or less media-usable form from organisations and individuals. The typical form of such information supplied to the media is the Press Release or Media Statement. Although they are rather specific in format, press releases and short news articles require generic written communication skills that are widely applicable. However, writing a clear and well-structured press release does not guarantee that it will be chosen to be covered by the media. Any material supplied to the media has to compete with much more of the same. There may be occasions when almost none of the material prepared with care, and supplied to specification, is included in the news pages or programmes.

MEDIA WRITING

News values

Millions of events happen around the world each day, but only a tiny fraction is featured in the media. Why? What catches a journalist’s attention to make an event newsworthy? Where are some events more newsworthy than others? The characteristics of information that make them newsworthy for journalists have been called news values, which include: threshold; meaningfulness, relevance, and consonance; co-option and composition; frequency, unexpectedness, and continuity; competition; unambiguity and negativity; facts, sources and reliability; elitism and personalisation

Writing and Structuring a Press Release

Answering Key Questions

A press release on, for example, the completion of a research project, should:

be clear and concise; identify important points prominently and quickly; point clearly to the main people involved; give contact details for the project personnel who are available for interview or

clarification (work phone, home phone, fax, email, mobile, pager, etc.) Issuing a press release is a first step in playing the ‘media game’, and the first rule of the game for would-be media sources is to be available.

The common convention for press releases is that they have little in common with the structure of scientific papers. Instead, they follow the format of a news story, with a ‘newsy’ headline and the opening sentences that set the main content. For purposes of a release to the general media, this opening angle is unlikely to be exactly what those involved believe to be the main content, but rather the aspect most likely to get media and public attention. Balancing the media interest with the scientific interest has to be rethought with each such initiative.

Press Release Format

The release should answer the questions that a news story in general aims to answer: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? This means that the following questions must be answered:

who did the research? what did they find? when was the work done, or the results published? where was the work done? why was it done – or, what is the significance of the research and its findings? how was it done? what was it done for? – or the reason why this research is relevant for society.

This is the “so what?” question.

Headline

The heading is the first element that addresses the journalist. A good heading must be short. Ideally, it should include an active verb, and employ vocabulary that is in common use and will appeal to readers’ curiosity or imagination.

Introductory Paragraph

The first paragraph should answer the six basic questions – who?, what?, why?, when?, where?, how? so what? – or as many of them as are relevant in the context.

Text

Paragraphs should be arranged in order of declining importance. A good test is to check to what extent, starting from the end of the text, paragraphs can be progressively removed without affecting the essence of the message. This compares to the simplest form of editing for a journalist seeking to fill a limited page space when working under deadline pressure. Adding quotations can be an effective means of making a story more lively and interesting – note that accuracy is essential when quoting third-party sources. It can also be a useful way to make points that are matters of opinion, rather than fact.

Subheadings

Subheadings divide the text into blocks of ideas and thus facilitate scan reading to identify items of particular interest to the reader.

Bullet Points

Bullet points are useful when listing a range of options or comparing related facts. They can often be helpful in reducing the amount of space needed to present a complex scenario.

Photographs, Diagrams, Graphs, Tables

An attractive (and good quality) photograph greatly increases the probability that a press release will be selected for publication, particularly if it includes a human element or illustrates a striking application. Diagrams can be a convenient means of explaining a working device, plant layout, process flow, etc. Graphs and tables simplify the interpretation of comparative data, but again should not be unduly complicated.

Background

Avoid the use of extensive technical explanations and historical detail in a press release. Where appropriate, the extra information could be added as ‘Notes to editors’ at the end of the release.

Press Release Style

Write Plainly

Use language that you think a broad audience will understand. And bear in mind that even the editor or journalist may not be a specialist in a particular field, so avoid unnecessary scientific jargon. Aim to express just one basic idea in each sentence. Keep sentences short – a maximum of 30 words is a good rule of thumb. Avoid

ambiguity; minimise the use of passive verbs. To facilitate reading, keep paragraphs short – typically two to three sentences.

Be Consistent

A press release should be consistent throughout in its use of spellings, abbreviations, units of measurement and the use of initial capital letters.

Checklist for Press Releases

Finally, here’s a checklist to check if there is something missing in the press release:

are the main points clearly stated? is there a strong news angle? is the case supported by facts, examples? are the 5 Ws and H answered? is it easy to read? are the key points highlighted? is the contact name and number included?

Further Reading

Christensen, L. L. The Hands-On Guide for Science Communicators. Springer: New York.

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus.

Module Content

What are policy makers like?

Policy makers are busy people, generally used to multi-tasking and to meeting considerable numbers of people. A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from one of the larger countries may be one of several representing a large city. If that city is London, for example, which has six MEPs and a population of at least 3 million voters, a single MEP potentially has 500,000 constituents. The world of European politics involves hundreds of MEPs, of various political persuasions, from different countries, and with a range of experiences. They all have staff members, and the European Parliament has its own extensive staff. And buzzing around the Parliament are swarms of lobbyists and interest groups, with a more or less permanent presence, and making increasing demands on an MEP’s time.

MEPs are expected to represent their constituents, and their parties, in the plenary sessions of the Parliament, and to sit on committees that subject parliamentary business – bills and budgets – to detailed scrutiny. They react to policy decisions from various European ministerial councils, and initiatives from the European Commission – the European Union’s permanent civil service – and its commissioners. They also have to take account of the ideas of the European Presidency, which currently rotates from country to country, but may become an elected office.

Like many professions where “people skills” are essential, MEPs will tend to be generalists. It is vital that anyone trying to present research to policy makers understands this: MEPs are intelligent, and a have very good sense of when someone is reliable and when they are trying to bamboozle them; but their knowledge level of any particular subject, particularly where science is concerned, is likely to be that of an intelligent 14-year-old. And it is probably out of date. This is not to patronize MEPs; no attempt to communicate with policy makers should do that. But it is to emphasise that scientific and technical information should be presented at a level that does not assume doctoral level prior knowledge.

Long reports are written for MEPs and policy makers generally. They are rarely read by them in their totality. The long report may be read by a staff member, or filed away for future use and reference. MEPs probably only read the executive summary, if that. They are now very used to thinking in “sound bites” that fit in with the demands of the mass media. This means that their ears are also attuned to listening in, and for, soundbites: many is the expert who has found their one catchy phrase in a long report repeated word-for-word by a legislator or minister.

PRESENTING RESEARCH TO POLICY-MAKERS

Why should MEPs want or need to know about science, technology and medicine?

In order to present science, technology and medicine to a committee of MEPs, it is important to have some ideas on their motives for attending a briefing or reading a short paper. Some of the possible reasons are as follows:

1. Economics: One of the plans of the European Union is to make Europe the most advanced technological economy in the world. MEPs are therefore well aware of the economic importance of science, technology and medicine to economics.

2. International prestige: The European Union considers itself to be an important international player, with influence that competes with or complements that of other influential nations and organisations. MEPs may see Europe taking a leading role in the development of new scientific knowledge and techniques as being an important part of maintaining and developing the Union’s international influence.

3. Education: There is great concern about the numbers of young people following careers in medicine, science (especially the physical sciences) and engineering. MEPs may want to be briefed on the latest developments that could prove inspirational to young people, in particular.

4. Health and Safety: The European Parliament has some responsibility (along with national governments, parliaments and assemblies) for ensuring the health and safety of European citizens. Particularly where issues cross national borders – e.g. pandemics, atmospheric and water pollution (including several rivers and seas) – MEPs need to know what science, technology and medicine have to say on these issues.

5. Defence: In many countries, the defence industry and the armed forces are responsible for large amounts of research and innovation. These have economic and political impacts, and new developments in science, technology and medicine can influence issues concerning international stability and well-being, touching on the concerns of MEPs. One area of increasing concern and activity is that of intelligence and counter-terrorism, in which more sophisticated techniques are continuously being developed.

6. Society: Associated with the development of science, technology and medicine are many society issues – for example, the impacts of new technologies on employment, of better healthcare for increased longevity and pensions. Again, all of the areas listed above may come into play – with sophisticated intelligence gathering comes the risk of damage to civil liberties. These are areas, in particular, where the social and political sciences have a great deal to say.

7. Culture: In Europe, science is seen as one of the great cultural achievements of the past five hundred years (or so). Ensuring that European citizens are aware of this is a major concern of MEPs.

Module Content

The Web And Science Communication

While the Web has become a means of communication on many topics and involving very many groups, science on the web is a special case, due to the long-established use of the Internet for communication within scientific communities, and the large stores of scientific information available via the net. The pervasive use of the internet in internal and public science communication has implications both for relations between scientific communities and between these and publics. This opening session will explore some of these implications through participants’ review of their own and their organisations’ experience of using the web to find and to disseminate scientific information. Participants are encouraged to reflect on the experience of web users who seek scientific information on the web, and who face the challenge of discerning what is valid and what is not. Trainers and participants will explore the consequences of the proliferation of many different forms and sources of science web sites.

Critical Review Of Selected Science Web Sites

The criteria widely used in web site evaluation, such as usability, navigability and interactivity are introduced. The workshop group discusses how these criteria apply, or need adaptation, for science web sites.

Good Practice In Web Publishing

Trainers and participants seek to develop a set of good practice standards for science web sites, with particular reference to identification of publisher, authors and purpose; writing style; length and formats of articles; uses of images; inclusion and selection of interactive features, e.g. feedback from users and discussion forums; use of hyperlinks, e.g. for placing new information in scientific and other contexts; updating of content.

Outlining Web Pages For a Research Project

Project websites come in various forms, but the emphasis here is on externally oriented sites. These can be key tools to raise the profile of a project and improve dissemination to specialists, potential users of the technologies being developed, politicians and public funding authorities, schools, students, as well as sectors of the general public. A website can allow access to key messages about the project and its results, tailored to different audiences. It can and should be updated on a regular basis. Key elements are:

Project description – what is it about? Why is it important? Background on the partners – who is involved? Regular information on progress – when did it start? When are the major

milestones?

PUBLIC SCIENCE ON THE WEB

Information for the media – press releases, background information and pictures

Other items could include a web version of any project newsletter, providing links to further information, and downloadable reports generated by the project.

Further Reading

Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the Web. London: Orion Business Books.

Lynch, P. and Horton, S. 1999. Web Style Guide. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Millon, M. 1999. Creative Content for the Web. Exeter: Intellect Books.

Ross, S. 2001. A Simple Guide to Writing for Your Website. London: Prentice Hall.

Trench, B. 2008. Internet – turning science communication inside out? IN: Bucchi, M and Trench, B (eds.) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.

Module Content

Contemporary science is being challenged and made controversial in at least the following four ways:

1. Scientists and some individuals and groups may have dramatically different conceptions of the same piece of scientific research or application of science. Medically-based contraception, for example, may be an accepted way of family planning for some, but for others it is ethically problematic. Commonly accepted scientific theories can be open to conflicting viewpoints. Evolution is viewed by science as being scientifically proven, while other groups and individuals see it as a doubtful and troubling hypothesis.

2. Science may be challenged in situations where people are critical of types of scientific work, and its results. Supporters of homeopathy, for example, challenge the way in which the big pharmaceutical companies produce drugs, and their opposition is amplified by those who oppose animal experimentation.

3. Science may be challenged in the institutional divisions within science and in the academic community as a whole. So we have the oppositions of social science and natural science, normal and revolutionary science, qualitative and quantitative science, predictive and explanatory science, to name but a few.

4. Science challenges the way in which we develop our own representations of the world in which we live, and that can trigger various responses. Do we live on a robust Gaia, for example, that will put right the damage humans do to it, or do we live on a Fragile Earth, a “pale blue dot” spinning and vulnerable in the hostile reaches of space?

These challenges frequently feature science-in-the-making, where the central facts and issues are not agreed by all, but are contested and controversial in one way or another. This is in contrast to ready-made-science, where the facts and issues are not in dispute, having been agreed collectively by scientific communities.

Controversy within Science

Contemporary scientific issues in which science is challenged frequently feature elements of controversy. But controversy has been a constituent element of science, despite its absence from traditional accounts of the development of scientific knowledge. A remarkable dimension of the scientific enterprise has been its ability to produce consensual agreement between the members of scientific communities. In traditional accounts, the winners – those whose theories were proved right – were

SCIENCE AND CONTROVERSY

highly and exclusively praised; the losers, whose theories were proved incorrect, were forgotten.

However, since the end of the 1970s, different perspectives on science have emerged from the academic discipline variously known as the sociology of scientific knowledge or science studies or the science of science. Scholars in this field have closely examined the workings of scientific communities, and have shown that consensus was more an ideal than a practical rule and situations of conflict arose frequently within and between disciplines. They have discovered how scientists were continuously negotiating and discussing the very content of scientific knowledge.

The study of these controversies provides a deeper understanding of the human dimensions of scientific knowledge. Science studies scholars argued that having an awareness of the implications of human passions and feelings in the construction of scientific knowledge provides for a genuine appropriation of the content of science. The popularisation of scientific knowledge (later, “science communication”) has traditionally concentrated on communicating the consensual result of scientific activities. We now need to look at science when it is still dealing with uncertainty and doubt.

A major part of this module is role-playing a historical controversy, an exercise that needs further elaboration. Activity: Role-playing a Controversy

In this exercise, trainees will be divided into two groups, and each group will be asked to argue one side of a controversial issue from the history of science. Each group will be given prepared materials to read (outlined below) from one side of the controversy. After reading the materials, the group will then have to put forward a short case for their side. Therefore, one side will be supporting theories that are now believed to be wrong, but were uncertain and controversial when viewed in their historical context.

After the presentations, trainees should be brought together again in one group, and asked which side they felt to be most persuasive, if any. Trainers should try to get the discussion to probe issues about how clear-cut the evidence was in supporting one side or another, what changes in belief and perception were required to get to their current position, and generally to bring out the idea that science-in-the-making involves processes that go beyond an unambiguous appreciation of the data.

The examples given in these notes have been taken from Collins and Pinch’s book The Golem: what everyone should know about science (1993), examples those authors have documented and discussed extensively. The controversies are: the confirmation of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (1919) and, the transfer of memories to rats (part of the “Edible memory” story).

Trainees are not required to fully understand the details of the science concerned but rather those aspects of the scientific question where the evidence is not as clear-cut as is often portrayed in simple accounts. This is in line with Collins and Pinch’s

approach; they are not so much challenging the science, but the way in which science-in-the-making is portrayed to the public.

Further Reading

Collins, H and Pinch, T. 1993. The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waller, J. 2002. Fabulous Science: fact and fiction in the history of science. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Module Content

The Social and Cultural Context for Science

Much can be said and has been said in literature, history, sociology and philosophy about science in society and culture. This short module is indicative, discussing four aspects of science in context that may widen the view of participants about the “science” in science communication, and help them place science communication itself in a broader social context. The four aspects are: science as an institution; science as culture; science as ideology; science as strategy.

Science as an Institution

Science in the western world has developed from an individual pursuit, largely carried out by wealthy and leisured individuals, to professional activity, often carried out in large institutions. Even in the early days, science had its own organisational structures, such as the Society of the Lyncei, of which Galileo was a member, or the Royal Society of London, founded in the 1660s, and still Britain’s premier science organisation. The conduct of science and the reciprocal impacts of science and the economic and political organization of society on each other are mediated by organisational structures of the scientific enterprise.

Various interests, political as well as economic, have a role in the way research is conducted. The direction of scientific projects, the choice of research topics and the wider dissemination of the results depend on factors ranging from economic spin-offs and political decisions to particular disciplinary traditions. Increasingly, these factors have to taken into account not just in national contexts, but in the context of European and global culture. Science communication is a part of the activity of science as an institution and must, inevitably, reflect these influences and the political and other motives of the institutions within which it takes place.

Science as Culture

It has been argued that modern science is one of the great cultural achievements of human history. Its potency is seen in the way it spread across the globe from its European cradle, and has been adopted as a primary means of understanding the world. Despite this, science is much less firmly and routinely embedded in our general cultural life than – say – the arts and humanities.

SCIENCE IN CULTURE

In his frequently republished 1959 lectures, The Two Cultures, English novelist and chemist C.P Snow drew attention to this general observation (Snow 1993). His comments on the relations between scientific culture and literary culture continue to resonate today, though many of his premises and conclusions have come under critical scrutiny.

The cultural dimension of scientific activity has been investigated by various researchers, often posing the question: is science itself a culture “in the anthropological sense of the term”, as Snow argued, or is science part of the general culture (“culture générale”)? Science communication will obviously be different according to the accepted option. In the first case, emphasis will be put on scientific information and results. The second option will lead us to consider the cultural integration of science - the way in which scientific results may change our representations of the world.

One way of thinking about science as part of culture is to think of the role played by science communication and popularisation. Individuals often try to make sense of their lives, to justify them, or at least explain what they have done and why, by writing their autobiography. In the same way, the communication and popularisation of science can be thought of as science writing its own autobiography (Jurdant 1993). So, just as ordinary citizens learn about the lives of their more noteworthy peers, and those lives become part of the shared culture, through autobiographies, so science becomes part of general culture through this autobiographical process of communication.

Science as Ideology

The emphasis on the way science refers to reality, and on its norms and ideals in much science popularisation has led many to propose that science itself can be seen supplanting other world views, including religion. This stance makes science at the centre of an ideology often known as scientism. Ideologies convey implicit representations of the world and values, which - if the ideology is to last – are stable and difficult to change. Today, scientific expertise has achieved elevated status, and the quest for scientific objectivity in many aspects of public life reflects the fascination with how science defines our access to realities. Science communication may be seen in this context as a mission to warn ordinary citizens of the dangers of, say, HIV or global warming, and convert them to rational views and behaviour.

But science communication also gives us the opportunity to stand back from the rather impersonal way in which science portrays relationships between things and terms used to describe them. Communicating science then becomes the telling of a story where humans are involved with their passions and desires, and where society is always present and active.

Science as Strategy

Even if they do not use science as an ideology, many governments, political parties, pressure groups and individual politicians see science as a strategy. This is

particularly the case around the rhetoric and activities aimed at building the “Knowledge Society”. According to proponents of the Knowledge Society, in contrast to the earlier concept of an “Information Society”, which considered citizens as recipients, mainly passive agents immersed in the prevailing communicative system, citizenship in the Society of Knowledge is active. Citizens must be empowered to discern and develop a critical spirit and, above all, be in a position to make well thought-out choices - perhaps the distinguishing trait of the Knowledge Society.

This has implications for science communication that may put it at the centre of a political enterprise. The Knowledge Society has been expressed in the formula: (R+D+I) + C (where “R” is the necessary basic and applied research ability; “D” is the required economic and social development; “I” is commitment to intellectual creation and innovation, both individual and collective). In this scenario of science in culture, “C” then involves strengthening the public communication to achieve the level of scientific culture to produce citizens able to take part in democratic decision-making processes.

Further Reading

Gregory, J., Miller, S. 1998. Science in Public. Communication, culture and credibility. London: Plenum.

Jurdant, B. 1993. Popularisation of science as the autobiography of science, Public Understanding of Science, 2 (4) p365-373.

Snow, C.P. 1993. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.

Module Content

Social Research Tools and Resources for Science Communication

Considerable time, effort and resources nowadays go into activities aimed at communicating science to lay citizens. Much of this is carried out with little ground work, in terms of understanding the nature of the public being addressed, their needs, their motivations, and their aspirations. There is often very little evaluation – other than the “did you have a nice time?” type of question. This is where techniques from the social sciences can be of great importance. One caveat, however: one common application of such techniques is to look for performance indicators, the knowledgeability of citizens, often with country-by-country ranking, or the effectiveness of a communication effort in simply transferring knowledge. So science communication aimed at empowering citizens or at cultural development may appear to be doing badly, even if it is demonstrably achieving its aims.

Quantitative methods

Surveys

Quantitative methods are designed to reduce complex social attitudes and knowledge and skills sets of citizens to statistically significant numbers, which give a general picture of groups or general populations. The European Commission regularly carries out surveys across the member states of the European Union, looking at science knowledge levels and attitudes to scientists and scientific research. Surveys are also carried out at national, regional and local levels. Such surveys may be about attitudes to science in general, or about particular issues. These can provide useful background information about the climate for science communication, but rarely capture the effects of specific science communication activities. Issues that need to be considered for using and interpreting surveys might include:

The survey’s aims: is it designed to probe knowledge, discover attitudes towards a tightly-defined issue, or is it a “fishing expedition” – aimed at finding out what is on the public’s mind?

Designing the survey: should questions be open or closed?; should answers be of the true or false type, or should there be a continuum of answers from “agree strongly” through “neither agree or disagree” to “disagree strongly”?

Choosing the most appropriate technique on the basis of topic, aims, resources, and available time frame: Will this be a postal survey, a phone poll, or will random individuals be approached on the street? How long are respondents expected to take to answer the questions?

THE SOCIAL SCIENCES FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

Data analysis: Do the numbers of respondents allow for detailed cross correlations, such as education level, gender or age against attitude to science?

Media Analysis

Getting direct access to the public’s views can often be an expensive process, and it is sometimes legitimate to use the mass media – international, national, regional, local – as a proxy for what is of concern to citizens. There are – of course – several caveats on this: one claim is that the media organise the agenda of issues that concern the public, but not what citizens actually think about them; again this simplification is not without problems, but it may be a useful approximation. Studies of what issues the media are covering, and how, can be carried out in a number of ways:

Researchers can divide science and technology issues covered in the press into a number of headings, counting articles in the relevant newspapers during a given period under each heading, and making a note of headlines. This can give a quick snapshot of how the scientific area of interest is understood in society.

At the other end of the scale, media outputs can be put through a rigorous process of content analysis, to determine the numbers of outputs (broadcast or online or print), their tone, their length or duration, who is quoted and to what effect, and other properties. Such studies are time-consuming. They usually require the media outputs to be sampled in a methodological fashion (if numbers are large), and to be analysed according to a robustly defined coding grid.

Results are usually displayed as bar or pie charts, showing the numbers of outputs under the agreed headings. The results of further analysis, if carried out, can be shown in subsidiary charts and tables. If the monitoring period is extended, there is much to be gained from producing time series, in which the outputs and the analysis can then be used to indicate trends in interest and attitudes – always remembering that it is the media that have been sampled NOT the public itself.

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative methods in the study of science communication are designed to produce a more in-depth picture of issues that are of concern to citizens, and can also gather citizens’ views on these issues. Since they are more in-depth, one can expect to spend longer with each person, and – for that reason – the number of people that can be involved is generally much smaller than in the case of surveys. The advantage of qualitative methods is that they allow for a much more nuanced view to be developed of how science and public interact. They often result in unexpected, and not explicitly searched-for, points of view to emerge. Those can add to the range of options or issues that might be explored further. There are numerous qualitative methods available to social science researchers, including:

Focus Groups

A focus group brings together a relatively small number of people – 12 is often thought a reasonable number – to discuss issues of concern, together with a facilitator, whose duties include ensuring the discussion stays close to the topic of interest and that all of thee participants get some opportunities to have their say.

In-depth Interviews

In-depth interviews involve a (usually) structured or semi-structured set of questions being put to a number of social actors concerned with an issue of science communication. These actors will often include professionals in the scientific area, as well as those affected in some way by the topic of interest.

Ethnographic Observation

This technique implies the direct participation of the analyst to the communication activity. By taking the role of “ghost” participant in the context of the activity, the researcher is able to take notes and observations that are particularly useful in revealing details of social interaction that may be more difficult to register with more structured techniques of analysis.

Evaluating Science Communication Activities

There is now considerable pressure for science communication activities to be evaluated. The motivation for this ranges from concerns by science communicators that effectiveness and good (and bad) practice be identified to insistence by funders that they are getting “value for money”. So proposals for science communication schemes and activities usually have to be accompanied by details of how they will be evaluated, particularly if these schemes are going to cost large amounts of money.

For example, the overall knowledge and attitudes of European citizens to science, technology and medicine are regularly monitored through the Eurobarometer surveys. But a museum or science centre might also use a short questionnaire to ask visitors what they thought about and learned from a new gallery, and results could be used to make changes to the displays. A government might monitor the media to see how successfully they have taken up a public health campaign, counting articles and analysing the information in them and the tone of the article for approval of the policies being proposed. A local science festival will similarly look to see how much press coverage it gets, perhaps concentrating on the local media.

Evaluation of science communication activities can be broadly conceived in terms of three main phases:

1. Design phase

There is now considerable pressure for science communication activities to be evaluated. The motivation for this ranges from concerns by science communicators that effectiveness and good (and bad) practice be identified to insistence by funders that they are getting “value for money”. So proposals for science communication

schemes and activities usually have to be accompanied by details of how they will be evaluated, particularly if these schemes are going to cost large amounts of money.

A museum or science centre might also use a short questionnaire to ask visitors what they thought about and learned from a new gallery, and results could be used to make changes to the displays. A government might monitor the media to see how successful a public health campaign has been, counting articles and analysing the information in them and the tone of the article for approval of the policies being proposed. A local science festival will look to see how much press coverage it gets, perhaps concentrating on the local media.

2. Implementation phase

Evaluation in itinere corresponds largely to ‘formative evaluation’ – evaluation intended to establish what is working and what is not in the ongoing activity, and to adjust the activity accordingly (Scriven 1991). This requires analysis of patterns of interaction among the actors, identification of obstacles and unforeseen effects, and monitoring of the use to which the available resources are put. Evaluation in itinere often also uses content analysis and ethnographic observation (for an overview of the potential and application of the various content-analysis techniques see Bauer and Gaskell 2001). The evaluation focus can be, for example, on what happens at a public meeting between scientists and members of the public – as in the case of a ‘consensus conference’ – or how a visit to a museum or a science centre develops as an experience involving not only learning, but also entertainment, social relationships and emotions (Kotler and Kotler 1998; Storksdieck and Falk 2004). In this phase, local or ad-hoc surveys, questionnaires to visitors and participants, in-depth interviewing, ethnographic observations, and content analysis of pictures and other materials produced during the interaction can be particularly useful.

3. Post-activity phase

Evaluation finds its natural place at the end of the communicative process, because it aims to assess and explain the success or failure of an action with respect to the goals it was initially intended to achieve (summative evaluation). It is usual in this regard to distinguish between output and outcome. In the former case, the results are defined as the effective accomplishment of what the initial design envisaged, thus privileging the point of view of the promoters of the communication.In the latter case, the results are instead viewed as changes produced by the communication, so that the attention focuses – at least potentially – on all the actors involved in the process. Evaluation may yield contrasting judgements in the two cases but, even more importantly, good results in terms of output offer no guarantees in terms of outcome. Dimensions of change considered as indicators can involve change in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of participants to science communication actions.

Further Reading

Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. 2000. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.

Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. 1998. Museum Strategy and Marketing. Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenues and Resources. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. 2008.

“Evaluating public communication of science and technology” IN: M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.

Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed). ThousandOaks, CA, USA: Sage.

Storksdieck, M. and Falk, J. H. 2004. Evaluating public understanding of research projects and initiatives IN: Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G. and Lewenstein, B. (eds). Creating Connections. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, pp87–108.

Module Content

The Neglect of Dialogue

The skills required for talking and listening about science - interpersonal communication, active listening etc. – and the motivations for being involved in dialogue with ordinary citizens are rarely part of the overall training of scientific, technical or medical researchers. True, there is a degree of “learning on the job”. But there is generally little thought given to these crucial skills, and very little about what lies behind them. So this module gives some material to underpin demands for dialogue, two-way communication, mutual engagement etc.

Defining Interpersonal Communication

An influential theorist in the area of interpersonal communication noted that this unique form of interaction has three characteristics: there is communication from one individual to another; it is face-to-face; and the communication reflets individual characteristics as well as social roles and relationships.

Hartley noted that people often act as if communication was linear, going in one way only, with a clear message, and that feedback is not important. In contrast, however, he noted (1993 p11-13) that interpersonal communication is:

always two-way: in a conversation one person may be speaking but the other is also communicating by nodding, looking alert, acting bored;

is partly or wholly intentional: participants have purposes or intentions they wish to communicate;

involves not the exchange of messages, but the creation and exchange of meaning:

is an ongoing process: instead of being an event or series of events, interpersonal communication does not always have a definite start or a definite finish;

is cumulative over time: what someone says to you today will be interpreted on the basis of what they said to you before. DeVito argued that interpersonal communication is best described as a circular and continuous process, with everything in a state of change. (DeVito 1992 p19)

General Interpersonal Skills

TALKING SCIENCE AND LISTENING

The interpersonal skills training to be delivered in this module is based on the social skills model developed by social psychologist Michael Argyle described by Peter Hartley in Interpersonal Communication. This model draws an analogy between performance in physical activity and performance in social situations, a model that can be adapted to interpersonal communication. Someone skilled in interpersonal skills, writes Hartley, has specific goals, takes steps to achieve these goals, observes the effects their tactics are having, and takes action to correct these tactics (Hartley 1993 p34). Hartley elaborated by noting crucial elements in this model of interpersonal communication – elements that trainees should be conscious of in their own efforts. They are: goals, perception, translation, behaviour, feedback, metaperception, situation and personal factors.

Specific Interpersonal Skills

The previous section introduced the idea that interpersonal communication can be skilled behaviour. It outlined some general points to think about in interpersonal communication situations. The next section outlines more specific interpersonal communication skills that can be used to achieve trainees’ communication goals. These specific skills are nonverbal communication, reinforcement, questioning, reflecting, opening and closing, explanation, self-disclosure and listening.

Active Listening Skills

Communication between scientists and non-scientists can be improved or hindered by the "quality" of listening. Active or positive listening is usually described as "good" listening. In active listening, the listeners not only internally absorb and process the information received but also encourage the other person to talk (Hartley 1993). Among techniques that one might use to improve his or her listening skills are the following outlined by DeVito (1992) and Hartley (1993):

paraphrasing, summarizing, interpreting the speaker's meaning (e.g. stating in your own words what the speaker meant helps to ensure understanding because it gives the speaker the opportunity to correct, rephrase or modify the statement);

expressing an understanding of the speaker's feelings (e.g. echoing the feelings one thinks the speaker expressed helps to verify one's perception of the feelings);

asking questions; maintaining attention and displaying the involvement in what the person is

saying (e.g. by using eye contact, head nods, appropriate facial expressions); eliminating distractions (e.g. phone calls); avoiding making judgments and evaluation; keeping your mind open; listening

for the main ideas (e.g. discriminating between fact and principle, idea and example, evidence and argument);

taking notes.

Science in Dialogue

In the current political climate of science and society interaction, there is an increased emphasis on public engagement and public participation in science policy – particularly in controversial research areas that concern, for example, environmental health risks or new genetic technologies. Scientists are encouraged to engage in dialogue with social actors from outside specialised expert communities during the policy process (Joss and Durant 1995). Such approaches are in direct contrast to the traditional deficit model of science communication where facts and figures were handed down by experts to a passive lay public (Kerr, Cunningham-Burley and Amos 1999). These views on dialogue and public participation have emerged from the sociology of science discipline, which recognises that

many different groups make up the public – and that their knowledge is not simply a matter of technical detail, but involves a broader understanding of scientific practice and institutions (Kerr, Cunningham-Burley and Amos 1999 p41).

Since 2001, there has been an initiative on a European level to carry out activities designed to effect dialogue between science and society. Throughout Europe there has been an acknowledgement of the importance of such public participation initiatives, and many countries are looking to the examples of Denmark and the Netherlands, especially, which have a history of public participation in decision-making about scientific and technological issues. The House of Lords in the UK made a high-profile intervention in this debate in 2000 when it published its Science and Technology Third Report (2000). It noted that a new mood for dialogue between science and various publics has emerged in the UK from what it termed the crisis in confidence regarding science, caused, in its view, by the BSE crisis and rapid advances in areas of biotechnology and information and communications technologies.

The Goals of Dialogue

Researchers communicating their science face-to-face to non-scientists can use interpersonal communication skills to engage in dialogue for several reasons. These include: increasing public awareness, decreasing public concern, evaluating public attitudes, presenting alternative technological paths, resolving conflict, increasing democratic rights, influencing policy, influencing research funding, seeing issues through different perspectives, and restoring trust in science. However, it must be noted that, in dialogue, opinions are not changed in one way only: scientists may have their positions and opinions altered as a result of the dialogue.

Lay Expertise

Parts of the public are more knowledgeable than others about specific aspects of science. There are groups of the public that have been identified in studies as having a reservoir of what has been termed lay expertise. These are not specialised communities but, for various reasons, have developed a concentration of knowledge about a specific aspect of science or medical science. One such group are the families of people suffering from a hereditary condition. Members of this group have a good level of knowledge of genetics and develop an understanding of medicine through intense focus on a specific area (see, for example, Parsons and Atkinson, 1992).

Scenario Exercise: Science in Dialogue

These skills will be put into practice during a major scenario exercise in which participants take on the role of different interest groups in society who are meeting to reach consensus on a pressing social issue that has a significant scientific dimension.

Activity 1: The wreck of the Prestige oil tanker

On November 13, 2002, the Liberian registered Prestige oil tanker radioed a “mayday” international distress signal to say that its hull had been pierced by being struck by an unidentified object during a storm. The Prestige was about 50km off the Costa da Morte, Galicia, northwest Spain and Portugal. It was carrying 77,000 tonnes of oil, and a large slick was clearly visible by November 17, when the European Space Agency (ESA) satellite Envisat took images of the sea around Galicia. The Spanish government refused to allow the Prestige into port, fearing massive pollution. The Prestige finally sank on November 19, 240km off the Galician coast, spilling 44,000 tonnes of oil into the sea. In late November, 2002, oil began to wash ashore, threatening the local fishing and tourist industries. Marine biologists from the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas have been called to a meeting organised by the Xunta de Galicia, the regional council, to which the fishing community have also been invited, designed to work out what to do in the immediate aftermath of the Prestige sinking. The marine biologists will outline the approach of bioremediation, which they are initially recommending. Remember that this is December, 2002, a time when storms are likely, but fishing is still going on. The tourist season starts around Easter in northern Spain and Portugal.

Activity 2: Human-Cow Hybrid Embryos for Stem Cell Research

Geneticists from two UK institutions have applied for a licence to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs. The scientists, from Newcastle University and King’s College London, want to harness these hybrid human-bovine embryos for stem cell research aimed at treating various conditions including Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, cystic fibrosis, motor neurone disease and Huntington's. Stem cells are viewed as being valuable for scientists because they are the body’s master cells and have the potential to turn into any type of tissue in the body such as liver, heart and muscle cells. Critics – including the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (SCHB) – have argued that this research is unethical and potentially dangerous. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the independent regulator of embryo research in the UK, has commissioned a public consultation to help it decide whether to grant the requested three-year license.

Further Reading

DeVito, J. 1992. The Interpersonal Communication (6th Edition). New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Hargie, O., Saunders, C. and Dickson D. 1989 Social Skills in Interpersonal Communication. (2nd edition) London: Croom Helm.

Hartley, P. 1993. Interpersonal Communication. London: Routledge.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2000. Science and Technology - Third Report. The Stationery Office, London.

Joss, S. and Durant, J. 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.

Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Amos A. 1998. The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science. 7, pp41-60

Parsons, E. and Atkinson, P. 1992. Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociology of Health and Illness. 14, pp439-455.

Pearce, C.G., Johnson, I.W. and Barker R.T. 2003. Assessment of the Listening Styles Inventory. Progress in Establishing Reliability and Validity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 17 (1), pp84-113.

Trenholm, S. and Jensen, A. 2004. Interpersonal Communication. (5th Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science. 1, pp281-304.

Module Content

The interview in media practice

Media professionals gather information in several ways, from multiple types of sources, but the interview occupies a central place in their methods. The availability of many electronic information sources does not reduce the importance attached to face-to-face interviews, particularly in broadcast media. The interview has various uses for the media, including:

gathering information about current research; validating or interpreting reported information; adding ‘personality’ to research news; commenting on current controversy.

Any individual interview may include more than one of these elements, thus underlining the importance of the interviewee being well prepared.

Scientists may be interviewed in various circumstances, in one of a range of interview formats, which include:

face-to-face in the interviewee’s place of work; face-to-face in a mutually convenient location; on the phone for print media seeking direct quotes and background

information; on the phone for live broadcast; on the phone for recording, editing and later broadcast.

Preparing for interview

When asked to participate in a media interview, trainees should respond carefully: they should ask themselves, for example, if the request might be better directed to a colleague in the same organisation, or even to someone in another organisation.

Potential interviewees can ask some reasonable preliminary questions of the media in question, e.g. where will the interview happen, and what is the interviewer’s main interest? However, there are things interviewees cannot reasonably expect, e.g. to have questions in advance.

Before the interview, interviewees must focus their thoughts on selected points that they consider essential to communicate. Interviewees should try to anticipate beforehand the possible lines of media questioning. Their selected key points are the central messages that interviews have selected as the information they view as being

MEDIA INTERVIEWS

most crucial to get across in the interview. Interviewees should adopt strategies to ensure that these points are addressed, and that they do not become obscured by excessive detail or by avoidable technical jargon.

Interviewees should remember the importance of the closing words in an interview and of having examples, anecdotes or analogies to help explain the science at issue.

Press conferences

Scientists may organise a press conference to get their key message across to the media. It is most likely that a press conference will only be considered where the university or institute has dedicated staff who can undertake the careful preparation over 15-20 days prior to a press conference, and ensure that there is effective follow-up. Such staff will need to check, for example, if a conflicting event is taking place that could divert the target media.

Press conferences should be used sparingly; otherwise they become a drain on budgets and dull the interest of the press. It is vital to weigh the value, and not to abuse the method to announce details that could easily be communicated in writing.

Invitations should include all the essential facts that journalists need to know – who, what, why, when, where, how, what for – and include any additional information that will help convince them to attend.

A full set of materials will need to be prepared for the journalists, so that those who do not attend the press conference can still report the announcement. This should include press release(s) covering the main messages being communicated, relevant background material, such as specially prepared fact sheets, relevant publications and possibly brochures, as well as handout versions of the presentation slides, CVs of relevant people and a contact sheet to allow journalists to follow-up.

All press conference contributors should prepare their presentations in detail, and support them with good clear slides, ideally in a format that can easily be distributed to the press. It is essential to rehearse presentations before an event.

Further Reading

Biagi, S. 1986. Interviews that work. A Practical Guide for Journalists. Sacramento: California State University.

Hurt, K. Handling the Media. Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. www.civicus.org/new/media/Handling%20the%20Media.pdf

Jockers, M. and Saroka, J. 2003. Media Guide. Biosolids Media Training. http://www.oracwa.org/Pages/03BiosolidsMediaGuideUpdate.pdf

White, S., Evans, P., Mihill, C., Tysoe, M. 1993. Hitting the Headlines. A Practical Guide to the Media. London: BPS Books.

Module Content

Audience Types

Knowing the characteristics of an audience is a prerequisite for any successful science communication effort. Therefore, anyone undertaking any communication should try to learn as much as they can about their audience before beginning to prepare their communication.

The following is a checklist of things you need to know about your audience:

What is its size? Is it a captive audience or not? What is its average age? What is the prevailing gender? What is the level, or levels, of education? What are the socio-economic backgrounds? What ideological or religious beliefs might the audience hold? ((This is

especially useful when your presentation concerns issues that have ethical or moral dimensions, such as biotechnology.)

What is the audience’s prior knowledge and experience of science and technology?

What are its attitudes towards science and technology? What is their familiarity with the medium or the context of communication?

For mass audiences, some answers to these questions could be found in national surveys (or Eurobarometer studies, in 2001 and 2007, that looked at public understanding of science; full references, below), studies of media readers, listeners or viewers, or by asking media professionals. For smaller audiences, the communicator can ask the organisers of the communication event in which they are participating, e.g. a class teacher if it is a presentation to students. Research in public understanding of science and science communication has accumulated a body of knowledge about some characteristics of the general public that seem to shape its relationships with science and technology. These characteristics can provide useful insights into the profile of an audience and can be summarised as follows:

Men tend, in general (or consider themselves), to be more knowledgeable and have a more positive attitude than women towards science and technology. Furthermore, men tend to be more interested in the physical sciences and technology while women tend to be more interested in the life sciences.

WHO ARE YOU COMMUNICATING WITH, AND WHY?

The younger the person is, the more closely they seem to follow - and the more they seem to appreciate – techno-scientific advances.

The number of courses in science and technology attended during school is related to higher levels of relevant knowledge, and – sometimes, but not always - more favourable attitudes towards the subjects studied.

The higher the socio-economic status of people, the more they understand, use and appreciate techno-scientific applications and theories.

The most scientifically ‘literate’ sections of society are not always the most deferential to science. In other words, more knowledgeable people are not automatically more accepting of science, or of specific developments in science; they seem to become discriminating ‘consumers’ of scientific expertise.

Not One Public, But Several Publics

Based on studies of the US public, researchers in science communication have identified three broad categories of the general public on the basis of how much they know about, and how interested they are in, science and technology:

1. Attentive Public: These are people who feel quite confident with the basics of techno-scientific knowledge and methodologies and exhibit high levels of interest. They follow closely the media coverage of relevant issues. They constitute about 15% of the total population, according to large-scale surveys in Europe, USA and Japan.

2. Interested Public: These are people who do not feel confident with the basics of techno-scientific knowledge and methodologies, but exhibit high levels of interest. They follow closely the media coverage of relevant issues. They constitute about 10% of the total population.

3. Residual Public: These are people who only occasionally learn about, or are interested in, something relevant to scientific and technological knowledge. They constitute about 75% of the total population. However, the stance of the residual public is not homogenous. Qualitative research has shown that lack of attention to techno-scientific matters originates from different self-perceived roles, which can be broadly described as:

non-scientific minded - people in this category claim that they are not clever or educated enough to understand complex techno-scientific issues;not my job - people in this category claim that it is not their job to understand science and technology. They allocate this duty only to experts;not interested or not relevant - people in this category claim that they find techno-scientific knowledge peripheral or irrelevant to their lives.

Finally, it should be noted that the preceding discussion gives only a very broad picture of large segments of the public and is more useful when dealing with mass audiences. For smaller audiences, other contextual factors seem to play a more central role. Examples of such contextual factors are:

The personal experiences of coming in contact with techno-scientific knowledge (e.g. illness, risk, training).

The ways the interests of local communities interact with the interests of experts (e.g. cooperation or conflict).

The stance of nodal persons or institutions in the community (e.g. a mayor, local unions, local press).

The values of specific audiences (e.g. mothers against abortion).

Uses and Gratifications of Science Communication

The basic tenet underlying the “uses and gratifications” approach to communication is that individuals comprising various audiences actively seek relevant information to meet certain needs. Media researchers have proposed the consideration of four broad needs fulfilled by viewers’ watching of television, which could be used in the analysis of various communication situations, including science communication. These needs are:

1. Diversion: i.e. a form of escape of thought or emotional release from everyday concerns;2. Socialization: i.e. the need to participate in discussions about current topics on the public agenda;3. Personal Use: the need to find information for problems and for taking decisions on a personal level;4. Surveillance: the need to have a general picture about ‘what’s going on’ in the world.

Furthermore, science communication activities are usually trying to promote the linkage of science and technology with:

Prosperity and Economic Performance: for example, a better-trained workforce, or a beneficial effect on innovation;

Active Citizenship: for example, participation in public decisions especially over controversial matters like BSE, nuclear power, or human cloning;

Personal Decisions: for example, over diet, health, safety, or the purchase of commodities;

Contemporary Thought and Culture: for example, science and technology are rich areas of human inquiry and discovery altering in crucial ways our civilization.

References

European Commission. 2001. Eurobarometer: Europeans, Science and Technology: public understanding and attitudes. Brussels: European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0612en.html.)

European Commission. 2007. Special Eurobarometer on Scientific Research in the Media. Brussels: European Commission. (The report can be downloaded from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_282_en.pdf)