[en] Science communication is becoming increasingly important. Research institutions, scientists and science communicators want to engage with society, share their knowledge and build trust. At the same time, it is about competition for research funds and top personnel. So how do you get it right – and what do you need to consider when developing your communication strategy? This handy and entertaining book provides the basics of goal-oriented science communication. It is aimed at career-building scientists and anyone who wants to take their first steps in the field of science communication. Experienced international authors in the field share their essential thoughts on important aspects of contemporary science communication.
Disciplines :
Communication & médias
Editeur scientifique :
Bertemes, Jean Paul; Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), Luxembourg
HAAN, Serge ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Life Sciences and Medicine (DLSM)
Autzen C. & Weitkamp E. (2020), 22. Science communication and public relations: beyond borders. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 465-484. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-022
Schäfer M.S. et al. (2020), 4. Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-004
Russell N. (2010), Communicating Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN:9780521113830
Akin H. & Scheufele D.A. (2017), Overview of the Science of Science Communication. In The Oxford Handbook of The Science of Science Communication, Oxford University Press. p. 25-33. ISBN:9780190497620
Hendriks F. & Kienhues D. (2020), 2. Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: contributions from psychological and educational research. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-002
Betz G. & Lanius D. (2020), 1. Philosophy of science for science communication in twenty-two questions. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-001
NGSS Lead States (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states (vol. 1, The Standards). The National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
Siry C. et al. (2018), “Doing Science“: Erwerb von Kompetenzen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht der École fondamentale. Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2018, pp. 140-141.
Wai J. (2023), Rethinking science education. Science 380:351-351. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh9225
van Gerven et al. (2018), Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appearances in their appreciation of museum objects, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8:325-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1497218
Åkerblom D. & Lindahl M. (2017), Authenticity and the relevance of discourse and figured worlds in secondary students’ discussions of socioscientific issues, Teaching and teacher education 65: 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.025
Saffran et al. (2020), Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0226711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
Breuer S. (2012), Über die Bedeutung von Authentizität und Inhalt für die Glaubwürdigkeit von Webvideo‐Formaten in der Wissenschaftskommunikation, in: Öffentliche Wissenschaft und neue Medien: Die Rolle der Web 2.0-Kultur in der Wissenschaftsvermittlung. ISBN:978-3-86644-844-5
Jensen et al. (2008), Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy 35: 527–541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130
Ecklund et al. (2012), How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLOS ONE, 7:e36240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036240.
Mannino et al. (2021), Supporting quality in science communication: insights from the QUEST project. JCOM 20, A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030207.
A Rose et al. (2020), Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. PNAS, 117: 1274–1276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
Oreskes N. (2019), Why trust science? Princeton University Press. ISBN:9780691179001
Pew Research Center, Sept. 2020, Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/09/PS_2020.09.29_global-science:REPORT.pdf
Archer et al. (2015), Science Capital: A Conceptual, Methodological, and Empirical Argument for Extending Bourdieusian Notions of Capital Beyond the Arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 52: 922-948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227
Vincent-Ruz P. & Schunn C.D. (2018), The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. IJ STEM Ed 5, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5
Mendick H. & Sheldrake R. (2016), Transforming Science Engagement: The impact of the British Science Association’s work, report. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.academia.edu/34224663/Transforming_Science:Engagement_the_impact_of_the_British_Science:Associations_work
Fähnrich et al. (2021), RETHINKING Science Communication Education and Training: Towards a Competence Model for Science Communication. Front. Commun. 6:795198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.795198
PCST network: Worldwide database of programmes and courses in science communication from Public Communication of Science and Technology. https://www.pcst.network/teaching-forum/science-communication-programmes-and-courses/
Pérez-Llantada C. (2021), Genres and languages in science communication: The multiple dimensions of the science-policy interface. Language & Communication 78: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.02.004
Nation I. (2006), How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review 63:59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Martínez A. & Mammola S. (2021), Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288:20202581. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2581
Rakedzon et al. (2017), Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLOS ONE 12:e0181742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742
Kerr et al. (2021), The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on public trust: An international study. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202
van der Bles et al. (2019), Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science, Royal Society Open Science 6:181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
Dhami M.K. & Mandel D.R. (2022), Communicating Uncertainty Using Words and Numbers, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26:514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.03.002
Siggener Kreis, Siggener Impulse (2021), Bilder in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Ueber_uns/Gut_Siggen/Dokumente/220223_Siggener-Impuls-2021.pdf
Wissenschaftsbarometer, Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar, https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/projekte/wissenschaftsbarometer; the graphics for article 11 (page 31) and article 31 (page 81) were translated to English and colours wereadapted to the used graphics style (CC BY-ND 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).
MacKenzie L.E. (2019), Science podcasts: Analysis of global production and output from 2004 to 2018. R. Soc. open sci. 6:180932. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180932
Quintana D.S. & Heathers J.A.J. (2021), How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities. Trends in Cognitive Science 25:3-5. https://doi.com/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.003
Yuan et al. (2022), “Listening” to Science: Science Podcasters’ View and Practice in Strategic Science Communication. Science Communication 44:200-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211065068
Evans C. (2008), The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Comput. Educ. 50:491–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.016
Spiegel et al. (2013), Engaging Teenagers with Science Through Comics. Research in Science Education 43:2309–2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9358-x
Boy B. & Buchner H.-J. (2021), Comics in der Wissenschaftkommunikation oder: Wie informativ sind Informationscomics? In Intention und Rezeption von Wissenschaftskommunikation, Herbert von Halem Verlag, pp 127-156. ISBN:9783869623146
Bundesverband der Schülerlabore e.V., Lernort Labor, http://www.lernort-labor.de/
Glowinski I. & Bayrhuber H. (2011), Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 6:371-392. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959426.pdf
Thomas C.L. (2012), Assessing high school student learning on science outreach lab activities, Journal of Chemical Education 89:1259–1263. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200320g
Falk J.H. & Storksdieck M. (2005), Learning science from museums. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos 12:117-43. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702005000400007
Bergeron A. & Bigg C. (2019), Built in Thoughts Rather than Stone: The Palais de la découverte and the 1937 Paris International Exposition. in Behind the Exhibit: Displaying Science and Technology at World’s Fairs and Museums in the Twentieth Century. (Artefacts Studies in the History of Science and Technology, Volume 12) Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. ISBN:978-1-944466-22-0; https://smithsonian.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/17609480
Schirrmacher A. (2019), North American World’s Fairs and the Reinvention of the Science Museum in the 1960s. in Behind the Exhibit: Displaying Science and Technology at World’s Fairs and Museums in the Twentieth Century. (Artefacts Studies in the History of Science and Technology, Volume 12), Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. ISBN:978-1-944466-22-0; https://smithsonian.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/17609480
Trap G. (2011), Le spectacle de la Nature: Sur la mise en scène de la Nature dans l’acte de médiation scientifique, Actes des JIES Chamonix 31:1-12.
Sumner et al. (2014), The association between exaggeration in health relate science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ 349:7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015
Goldberg R.F. & Vandenberg L.N. (2021), The science of spin: Targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ Health 20, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0
Lewandowsky et al. (2020), The Debunking Handbook 2020. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182 (https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/43031)
Vosoughi et al. (2018), The spread of true and false news online, Science 359:1146-1151. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559
Marlow et al. (2021), Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Climate Policy, 21:6, 765-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870098
Rossmann C. et al. (2017), Risikokommunikation. In: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA). Leitbegriffe der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Glossar zu Konzepten, Strategien und Methoden. https://doi.org/10.17623/BZGA:Q4-i103-1.0
Gigerenzer G. (2020), Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. Pantheon Verlag, ISBN:978-3-570-55442-5
Ruhrmann G. & Guenther L. (2017), Katastrophen- und Risikokommunikation. In Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_16
European Commission: Report on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union and Norway in 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/SWD2019_Part_A_and_B.pdf
Pew Research Center (2014), Opinion About the Use of Animals in Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-theuse-of-animals-in-research/
Data sources for the figures were: Ipsos Mori, UK: office of life science (2018); https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-05/18-040753-01_ols_public_attitudes_to_animal_research_report_v3_191118_public.pdf and Gallup, US: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/moral-issues.aspx
Crane, A. & Matten D. (2010), Business Ethics. 3rd ed., Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199564330
Medvecky, F. & Leach J. (2017), The ethics of science communication. Journal of Science Communication 16(4). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040501
European Commission (2020), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - On the European democracy action plan. Available under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0790
Cormick C. (2019), The science of communicating science: The ultimate guide. CABI. ISBN:9781486309818
Erhardt D. (2011), Hochschulen im strategischen Wettbewerb. Gabler Verlag. ISBN: 978-3-8349-7114-2; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-7114-2
Clarke M. (2009), Ethics of science communication on the web. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 9:9-12. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00096
