Geoscience Communication: A Content Analysis of Practice in British Columbia, Canada Using Science Communication Models

Onstad, Courtney Carol; van der Flier-Keller, Eileen

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1960

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1960

Preprints

05 Aug 2024

| 05 Aug 2024

Status: this preprint is open for discussion.

Geoscience Communication: A Content Analysis of Practice in British Columbia, Canada Using Science Communication Models

Courtney Carol Onstad and Eileen van der Flier-Keller

Abstract. Geoscience communication, an emerging discipline within the geosciences, faces a scarcity of theoretical grounding despite abundant practical perspectives. This paper addresses this gap by investigating the application of science communication models (deficit, dialogue, participatory) in geoscience communication, specifically in British Columbia, Canada. The overarching aim is to determine if the ‘deficit to dialogue’ shift often discussed in science communication literature is reflected in geoscience communication practice. Using a content analysis approach, data was collected from publicly accessible websites to qualify and quantify how (activities) and why (objectives) geoscience communication practitioners communicate. The activities and objectives were coded based on terms associated with each model that closely aligned with those described by Metcalfe (2019a,b). Findings reveal a persistence of the deficit model in practice (76 % for objectives, 61 % for activities) with limited adoption of dialogue and participatory approaches. This suggests a discrepancy between theoretical advancements in science communication and their application in geoscience contexts. The study highlights disparities in the use of communication models across target audiences, regions, and venues. While communication with K-12 audiences utilizes dialogue-based approaches, participatory activities are underrepresented, particularly in regions with high population densities (e.g. Lowermainland/Sea-to-Sky: 0 % participatory) and areas where geoscience intersects with public interests (e.g. Northern B.C.: 3 % participatory). By shedding light on the current landscape of geoscience communication in British Columbia, this research informs future endeavours in theory development and practice improvement within the broader field of science communication. However, it also acknowledges the need for localized studies to capture the diverse contexts of science communication practices worldwide.

Received: 02 Jul 2024 – Discussion started: 05 Aug 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1425 KB)

Supplement (602 KB)

Download & links

Courtney Carol Onstad and Eileen van der Flier-Keller

Status: open (until 22 Nov 2024)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1960', Joana Rodrigues, 30 Sep 2024 reply

This manuscript presents original research about how science communication models are used in geoscience communication in British Columbia, finding that the deficit model is still dominant and dialogue and participatory approaches are underused, highlighting a gap between theory and practice.

General comments:
The title accurately describes the paper's content and the abstract provides a clear and complete summary. The goals, study design and results are communicated with clarity, with all sections well-structured to effectively convey the research findings and facilitate understanding of the study's significance. The methodologies are well-detailed and limitations are transparently acknowledged, providing a clear understanding of the research's scope and findings. Related and referenced works are properly acknowledged and the reference list reflects an extensive literature review.

The paper addresses an important scientific question under the scope of GC, offering a valuable, comprehensive and current review of the topic. As underlined in the manuscript, there are few studies in this area, making this work a much-needed contribution to advancing the field of geoscience communication. Deficit model thinking, which has received considerable attention in science communication research, needs also to be addressed within the context of geoscience.
Although the work has a regional focus, considering trends studied in other scientific fields, I believe that the findings are likely consistent with broader patterns and therefore, the insights from this paper will contribute to global improvements.

Specific comments:
- In the abstract, it is noted that geoscience communication, though rich in practical perspectives, lacks theoretical grounding; it might be beneficial to reinforce this context by including some few more relevant references in the literature review.

- Considering the journal's audience, it may be pertinent to include a few specific examples illustrating each of the three theoretical models of geoscience communication in section 2.2 Science Communication. In the supplemental material, the objectives and activities within the models are thoroughly explained, however, I would suggest incorporating just a few examples directly into the main text for better context.

- In line 84, it is noted that there is often an oversimplification of the diverse and intricate nature of audiences. It is unfortunate that the ‘general public’ could not be segmented further. Is it possible to provide any insight into who is included in the ‘general public’? Were there no activities identified for local communities or media/journalists,
It is indeed a pity that geo-art was excluded from the analysis, but this decision is totally understandable due to the limited available information on the objectives.

- I am not sure if the concept of ‘programs for science learning’ implicitly emphasizes knowledge rather than engagement.

- Regarding the methodology of content analysis (3.2), the description is thorough, reflecting the complexity of the process and demonstrating robustness. The challenges of coding appear to have been significant. In fact, understanding a strategy that looks dialogical at first glance but ultimately turns out to be one-directional in practice must have been quite complex. In that sense, I believe the methodology section thoroughly addresses reliability, which is fundamental for ensuring the validity of the findings and the overall transparency of the research. However, I would consider streamlining that section to facilitate readability and make it easier for the reader to follow without compromising the depth of information.

- Does this more than twofold discrepancy between participatory objectives (13%) and activities (5%) call for specific further reflection?

- Can some concrete future steps be suggested to address this deficit model prevalence?

- I am not sure if the term ‘K-12’, is widely recognized by readers globally. Although it is explained in detail in the supplemental material, I recommend providing a small definition in the main text.
- I would also suggest clarifying the term ‘sciart’, referring to the intersection of science and art, as it may not be familiar to all readers.
- Please note that the official designation is ‘UNESCO Global Geopark’ (UGGp), but the text inconsistently refers to it as ‘GeoPark’ or ‘UNESCO Geopark’.
- Regarding venues, it is not totally clear if Tumbler Ridge UGGp in British Columbia was considered in the assessment?

Conclusion:
Overall, this manuscript is very interesting and well written, offering an important insight into geoscience communication research and contributing to the advancement of the field. The methodology is robust and clearly presented, with results that strongly support the conclusions.
The theoretical studies in this area are notably scarce, making this contribution very valuable. This work presents results supported by concrete data that are essential for developing practical approaches to contribute to address challenges in geoscience communication.

Thanks to the authors for submitting this interesting study.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1960-RC1

Courtney Carol Onstad and Eileen van der Flier-Keller

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1960-supplement

Courtney Carol Onstad and Eileen van der Flier-Keller

Viewed

Total article views: 366 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
224	67	75	366	28	7	6

HTML: 224
PDF: 67
XML: 75
Total: 366
Supplement: 28
BibTeX: 7
EndNote: 6

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	117	53	53	223
Sep 2024	80	11	1	92
Oct 2024	27	3	21	51

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	117	53	53	223
Sep 2024	80	11	1	92
Oct 2024	27	3	21	51

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 361 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 361 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 19 Oct 2024

Short summary

Our study investigates geoscience communication in British Columbia, Canada, examining the application of theory in practice. Using content analysis, we assessed how and why geoscience communicators engage the public. We found the prevalent use of the "deficit" model, which emphasizes knowledge transfer, rather than fostering dialogue or participatory approaches. This research illuminates current practices and guides future endeavours in theory development and science communication practice.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0