the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 Jan 2024
Editorial: The shadowlands of science communication in academia — definitions, problems, and possible solutions
Abstract. Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can benefit society, science, and make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication which are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: 1) harmful or unclear objectives; 2) poor quality and lack of rigor; and 3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these will require: 1) clarifying objectives and audiences; 2) adequately training science communicators; and 3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. By shining a light on the shadowlands of science communication in academia and proposing potential remedies, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication—a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science, the welfare of scientists, and more broadly society at large.
- Preprint
(765 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3121', Heather Doran, 15 Jan 2024
My comment relates to the role of science communication facilitators in this landscape. It isn’t clear (until later in the article) that you only discuss the role of scientist - communicators in this overview. Universities employ public engagement professionals, science writers, events organisers and or outreach organisers who take on some of the burdens of science communication to support, train and facilitate communication from scientists. It would be great to see this being explored in more detail in the discussion. You could explore some of the resources from the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement in the UK for further information about what these engagement professionals do in the academic arena. In addition they have undertaken activities that relate to recognition of communication and engagement within the role of research. There’s a very interesting discussion about who delivers training in this area and how this might adhere to a set of principles rather than it being based only on an individuals experience. Depending on how much that individual is connected with the wider discussions in science communication and/or networks such as the Public Communication of Science and Technology Network (PCST) they may or may not be aware of some of the complexities in this space.
More information about the relationship between scientists and citizen scientists in this overview of how science communication may take place. I don’t think this dynamic is fully reflected in the overview as it stands - this could be explored through the Science Shops network and/or the Impetus Citizen Science project.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3121-CC1 -
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3121', David Crookall, 15 Feb 2024
I enjoyed reading the ms ; it helped me greatly to understand much about the areas that need work in geosci comm. I am sure that it will help the whole community of geoscience – not just geosci comm.
Here are a few thoughts that might be useful. I hesitated about whether or not to offer these thoughts, fearing that they may be taken as intended, that is, as a small bowl of ideas, among which you may pick and choose, with the hope that they might be useful as you revise your ms.
Your mention of the deficit model reminds me of a number of works:
For example, C P Snow’s two cultures, back in 1959, and book in 1963, argued that our society had divided into two mutually ‘inunderstandable’ groups.
The ground-breaking study by Baratz & Bafratz, 1970, “Early Childhood Intervention: The Social Science Base of Institutional Racism” shines a light on the idea of educational deficit. They propose a different model: “The cultural difference model is presented as a viable alternative to the existing genetic inferiority and social pathology models”. I must say that I still encounter thickly-veiled attitudes of that kind in academia.
Somewhat related to the two cultures is the vibrant discipline of cross-cultural (or intercultural) comm and training. One might say that the lay public and scientific groups tend to live in two fairly distinct cultures, each with their own beliefs, values and behaviours. Stella Ting Toomey and Young Yun Kim – and their colleagues – have done some marvellous research in the area. They may sometimes talk with each other, but the cultural gap remains wide. We geoscientists wishing to visit a lay culture need to learn much before we travel there. One unwritten rule of cross-cultural travel is that visitors must adapt to the host.
Sometimes, I wonder whether the general public and scientific groups do not get caught up unawares in the quagmire of sociocognitive processes, such as social identity, categorization, intergroup behaviour and language – see, the work by Henri Tajfel, Howie Giles, John Taylor, Miles Hewstone and others. In particular, I would suggest that you include the social psychology of language (Giles), which is a powerful force in intergroup comm and understanding, especially as comm, sci comm and outreach inevitably use language in massive doses. (British people know (or should know) the force of accent and speaking style in comm and intergroup behviour.)
Your potential solutions (Fig 1) are excellent, but my fear is that, without some consideration of the above dimensions, they will remain relatively superficial, and lead to results that are disappointing in the long run. I suggest that your solutions should include derived from the intercultural and intergroup language behaviour domains.
One way to bridge the divide is citizen science, esp citizen sci that is done in close collaboration with professional scientists. Both groups can be trained in intercultural comm and then encouraged to work together on an equal footing, not just in doing fieldwork, but also in publishing. The geosciences offer great opportunities for that.
I would not agree completely with the statement: “leaves non-English speakers at a disadvantage and prevents them from actively participating”. Many French, German, Spanish, etc. scientists are in fact at an advantage (assuming of course that they are at ease with what is called ‘international English’). Have you noticed that at some conferences, the non-English people seem to gather easily among themselves without natives? I can tell you a convincing, personal story sometime about that sometime.
Also, I think that some discussion about the fundamentals or theories of comm might help, esp as comm is so diverse – in its nature and in the scholarship and research about it. For example, in l.534, you talk about one-way comm. This smacks of the old Shannon & Weaver model of comm. It might be worth bringing in constructivist approaches, eg, Berger & Luckmann’s classic work on meaning making and legitimization.
I wonder whether bit would help the reader if you developed some summary tables at various junctures. Also, diagrams illustrating in visual form some of your concepts would be most welcome.
It would be marvellous if you were able to expand on your training needs (l.532), and even provide examples of training methods (such as simulation/gaming and debriefing) that match those needs.
Some mechanical things :
l.26 -- which: does that refer to shadowlands or to practices or to something else? is the subordinate defining? (then use that) or non-defining? (then use , which)
l.212 -- ‘s’ missing
l.455 -- it would help the reader if your numbered sentences were placed vertically (as in bulleted items)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3121-CC2 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3121', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to read your work “The shadowlands of science communication in academia — definitions, problems, and possible solutions.” Working in the science communication space, I agree that the “shadowlands” is a great way to represent the elements of the field that are so central to our work and yet so ambiguous or unclear for those trying to navigate research and meaning in science communication. I think that this piece will shed light on the unwritten and often muddy spaces that dictate a lot of our work, but are often not explicitly taught, accounted for, or made clear. Thinking through shadowland spaces will be helpful for both current and future science communicators, in geoscience, but also more broadly.
I appreciated the introductory material that offers a brief history of where science communication has been and where it is going next. Something that I found myself wondering about was the connection between the science communication definitions offered, the specific Geoscience Communication definitional spectrum, and the taxonomy that followed. I thought that outlining the elements of geoscience areas was helpful, but thought there could be a bit more clarity situating this very specific definitional framework against the larger definitions of science communication, particularly since the section that follows offers another set of categorizations. I wasn’t always sure how to connect the three different definitional frameworks. Once the shadowlands section began, I was more clear on the trajectory.
Figure 1 offered a really clear overview of the project and goals of the piece in terms of framing science communication. One question I had for further consideration is: what are the distinctions between training science communicators and viewing science communication as a valued professional activity? There seems to be overlap in these two solutions, but perhaps an example or a bit more detail could differentiate the two.
I really appreciated the discussion about responsible use of uncertainties on page 9, and wondered if it might be worth mentioning that public audiences are also equipped to handle uncertainties as decision-makers are (unless decision-makers in this case was meant to represent both public and expert audiences). Overall, I thought the discussion about unidirectional risk communication was really timely and important.
In terms of the first recommendation regarding Clarity and transparency, I think the term clarity could be explored in a bit further detail. Clarity can mean a lot of different things depending on context, which might be worth discussing. I do think, though, that the focus on audience in this section is key and does a great job of highlighting that cultural and social backgrounds impact audience interpretation and interaction with the information.
The authors did a great job of discussing specific organizations that could modify their practices with regards to science communication to offer a way forward, and the level of detail constitutes a great first step towards these ends. If anything, some information about first steps that readers could take towards implementing or advocating for these goals could make these goals more actionable for those in the field who may not be in direct positions of power to influence these decisions. Overall, though, I thought these ideas were great, and geoscience communicators can really benefit from considering these alternative ways of valuing and incentivizing science communication in our diversity of roles.
Other considerations:
- In line 211, “some scientific discipline” should read “scientific disciplines”
- In line 272, should “action” be “actions” based on the multiple recommendations (drop, cover, hold on)?
- There appear to be a few extra spaces in line 392
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3121-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3121', Robyn Pickering, 07 Mar 2024
Gani et al present a thoughtful, well researched and compelling editorial on what they term the 'shadowlands' of science communication. They clearly present the value of science communication and identify the issues pushing this into the shadowlands. They then offer some interesting perspectives and clear recommendations. This is a valuable piece and I enjoyed reading it very much and am delighted to be in a position to offer some comments.
My main and central comment is on the use of language and the distinction between 'science' (implying the entire arc of all things scientific) and 'geoscience' (more focused on the earth and earth processes). The use of both terms and both meanings belongs in this piece but there are many times where narrowing the discussion and scope to 'geosciences' I believe is appropriate. This is a Geoscience journal, from a geoscience society, written by a group of geoscientists, for an audience predominantly of geoscientists! I don't wish to labour this point, but I think the addition of 'geo' to many of the instances in which 'science' is mentioned will focus and strengthen the arguments and piece in general. There are generic points about science communication but the examples and recommendations, especially related to hazards, are more geoscience. My recommendation is that the authors critically assess almost every mention of 'science' and see if replacing this with 'geoscience' would work better. For example section 3.3 could be 'Geoscience communication as a professional activity'.
I am not sure if section 1.2 is necessary - it's a nice literature review but in my view does not add much to the paper and could either be condensed into the introduction or left out. This will also make the piece shorter and more focused.
In section 2, the term 'shadowlands' is discussed in more detail. My sense is these authors are introducing this term for the first time? If yes, maybe add some text saying 'in our opinion' or 'from our perspective'. This is such a useful phrase and way of looking at improving geoscience communication, I think the authors should take credit for it! Figure 1 is really clear and useful.
In section 2.3.1, I wonder if the authors would like to be even clearer and call out the Whiteness of geoscience - rather than just say how low the percentage of minoritized groups. There are two articles which clearly articulate the Whiteness of geosciences: Dutt, 2020, Nature Geoscience and Berhe et al., 2022, Nature Geoscience. From my perspective, this section can be strengthened by being clearer - geosciences does not just have a low percentage of everyone else, our field is predominantly White and this Whiteness carries a lot of privilege.
Following on from this point, in the next paragraph, there is a very well written argument about the 'invisible labour' done mainly by women. Again, I wonder if this section can be even more specific, rather than just saying this labour is done mainly by women, say that male privilege shields many geoscientists from feeling pressured or obliged to undertake this labour. Then intersect this with race, and we have White male privilege vs minoritized women burdened with additional and invisible labour. A recommendation out of making this discussion more explicit could be that better geoscience communication needs to be more representative, which in this case requires broader participation.
In summary, this is a thoughtful, well written, timely piece which will generate further discussion, as well as recording where we are right now in understanding and bettering geoscience communication. I look forward to seeing the final version published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3121-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 481 | 208 | 18 | 707 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 481
- PDF: 208
- XML: 18
- Total: 707
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1