Search

Park rangers hold a unique set of knowledge—of science, of publics, of institutional structures, of place, and of self—that should be recognised as valuable. For too long, models of the knowledge of scientists and publics have set people like rangers in an inbetweener position, seeing them as good at communicating, translating or negotiating from one side to the other, but not as making knowledge that is powerful in its own right. In this paper we argue that focus groups with park rangers across regional and conservation parks in Aotearoa/New Zealand reveal the complexity and multiplicity of rangers’ knowledge-making that shows the science-public model as incomplete. We argue further that the model is flawed for its focus on the making and holding of knowledge and not also on how it is enacted. Rangers, we argue, are responsible every day for making knowledgeable decisions for the health and well-being of parks and people. Making good decisions, though, requires not just knowledge but also care. An understanding of the many ways rangers know and enact their knowledge is important for biosecurity practice, especially in models of adaptive governance.

Australia’s 20,000+ wildlife volunteers rescue and rehabilitate native animals. They respond to hundreds of phone calls and enquiries every day, mostly from members of the public, seeking help and advice about injured, orphaned, nuisance or unusual wildlife sightings. The Black Summer bushfires significantly increased the profile of wildlife rescue services and led to more financial support than the sector has ever received before, though historically the sector has been underfunded and risks being so again. Wildlife rescue service callers were surveyed and interviewed about their knowledge and views of wildlife rescue. Users of wildlife rescue services appear to be interested in native animals, highly supportive of wildlife rescue services and willing to contribute to wildlife rescue with time and money. There were notable gaps in their knowledge about wildlife rescue services, such as how much government support occurs and whether wildlife carers are volunteers or employed. Wildlife rescue services are highly valued by the people that use them. Perhaps paradoxically these users have low awareness of how these services are organised or funded. The findings of this study suggest that wildlife rescue volunteers could access donations, new members and education opportunities by tapping in to public interest and concern for wildlife.

This paper unpacks what happened when members of the local community were invited to design and test a valuation tool – specifically a discrete choice experiment – to find a valuation for New Zealand’s Otago Peninsula. We argue that the assumptions that lie within a discrete choice experiment are revealed when we look closely at how community participants react to the discrete choice experiment survey they have helped design. These assumptions, usually unnoticed, include the necessity of making trade-offs; what actions are possible; the ‘reality’ of one’s preference structures; the need for abstraction; and the importance of big picture patterns. We also argue that how these assumptions are negotiated in practice depends on complex power relationships between researchers, participants, and the technology itself. While we might seek to ‘empower’ the community with knowledge of economic processes and valuation practices, this might not be the empowerment they seek. Participants find ways to be active negotiators in the face of valuation technologies.

Transdisciplinary collaborative processes like knowledge co-production have been promoted as valuable mechanisms to address complex environmental management issues. Their value is based on epistemic and participatory ideals involving academic and non-academic knowledge and values being elicited and deliberated upon. While idealised processes of participation have been described, the actual nature of non-academic contributions including those of environmental managers has received scant attention. We explore the role and input of environmental managers in knowledge co-production, drawing on two cases from Australia and South Africa. We use an analytical frame based on the co-production idiom which focuses on process legitimacy when involving lay participants in science-informed dialogue. Environmental managers tend to be treated as part of a homogeneous group of ‘policy-makers’ but our research reveals that this characterisation masks individuals with a diversity of motivations, skills and responsibilities who contribute empirical, pragmatic and normative knowledge to co-production. Our results also suggest that environmental managers were not always able to contribute meaningfully to the critical early step of issue definition. These new insights suggest better conceptualisation of decision-maker expertise and roles, and flexibility in design and implementation of collaborative processes, are required if knowledge co-production is to achieve a participatory ideal and substantively better environmental management decisions.

New genetic tools can potentially mitigate the decline of biodiversity. Democratisation of science mandates public opinion be considered while new technologies are in development. We conducted elev...

This chapter shows how the concept of ‘responsible stagnation’ opens up a new way of looking at some of the problems with markets, GDP growth and innovation systems as they currently stand. It discusses the concept of ‘stagnation’ and why it provokes such fear on the part of policymakers and politicians, before examining the normative values of Responsible Stagnation and how ‘responsibility’ might be imagined in this setting. It considers the value of slowed reasoning in better decision-making, and innovating from an ethics of care. The chapter closes with a discussion on RS as a particular configuration of change, both social and material, that places responsibility centre-stage and offers its own set of priorities, regardless of their contribution to GDP.

Synthetic gene drive approaches are nascent technologies with potential applicability for pest control for conservation purposes. Responsible science mandates that society be engaged in a dialogue ...

How is economics made public? Specifically, how is economics made public on Google? Here we explore a methodological problem – studying google-knowing – and simultaneously explore the more pragmati...

‘Science Communication Practice in China’ is a book that does two things. One very intentional, one less so. Intentionally, it presents the state of science communication and popularisation in China with a strong focus on the historical and policy context this is embedded in. Less (or possibly un-)intentionally, it makes explicit both its assumptions about what science communication should aim for and how it should go about its business, as well as forcing the reader to acknowledge their own assumptions of the role and place of science communication.

The ultimate framing of the first iteration of RRI as enabling smart, inclusive, sustainable growth had as much to do with the financial crisis then engulfing the Eurozone as meeting the goals of the Lisbon Treaty. Now we have come to the end of Horizon 2020, it is presently unclear how RRI will continue to be addressed as it is mainstreamed into Horizon Europe. In this Perspective, we will argue that discussions about placing responsibility at the centre of innovation should not solely be aimed at promoting GDP-measured growth. Our vision must be longer, more global, more transformative. In this short piece, we explore the possibilities arising through extending ‘responsibility’ to an a-growth approach to innovation, one which emphasises the relational dimensions of responsible innovation through the concept of ‘well up’ economics. ispartof: Journal of Responsible Innovation vol:8 issue:2 status: Published online

During 2015, New South Wales (N.S.W), Australia experienced an unprecedented spike in human-shark interactions. These interactions saw the escalation of public anxieties surrounding water safety and the implementation of the state's $16 m Shark Management Strategy. Of the 14 human-shark interactions that occurred in N.S.W, eight were recorded on the state's North Coast. The interactions ignited considerable public debate, which sought to explain the spike in interactions and how to best manage the risk of human-shark interaction. This controversy was documented by the media. This study takes its lead from McCagh et. al (2015) to examine the media's reporting of public and political response to human-shark interactions in N.S.W. Discourse analysis was used to investigate two newspaper's reportage of human-shark interactions on the North Coast. This paper outlines that the discourse used by the media examined was not fear-laden, sensationalized or emotive, which previous studies have emphasized. It highlights the importance of investigating local media as means of investigating public and political response to environmental issues. The W.A shark cull seems to be a turning point in public and political attitudes towards shark management. The N.S.W government did not offer lethal or seemingly knee-jerk policy, but insisted on the investigation of non-lethal, scientifically and conservationally focused management. The N.S.W government appeared to be successful in consulting the local community and delivering policy that reflects the values and interests of the North Coast public. Our research reflects Neff & Wynter's (2018a) suggestion that the ‘save the sharks’ movement has indeed arrived.

To test whether environmental immersion and mobile filmmaking (using smartphones or tablets) can engender positive attitudes to science, seventeen Year 10 (14-15 years old) drama students from Queen’s High School, New Zealand, were taken to Westland National Park to make videos about climate change using iPads (Immersion Group). Another fourteen students (Control Group) remained in Dunedin and also produced videos about climate change. Both groups had equal access to equipment, tutoring, incentives and footage. Yet, students in the Immersion Group were more likely to complete videos and produced videos of a higher quality. While there were no differences between the two groups in their attitudes to science before the experiment, afterwards the Immersion Group students had significantly more positive attitudes to doing science at school and beyond. The combination of environmental immersion and mobile filmmaking substantially increased interest in the environment and climate change, suggesting that it offers a promising tool for science education.

Participatory science communication featured in several sessions and individual papers at the 2021 online conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network. This coverage recognises the drive away from linear communication to more participatory forms of science communication. In this special edition we present practice insights, papers and essays that explore participatory science communication. These contributions explore definitions, processes and describe case-studies of participatory science communication which involve a variety of publics, from young school students to Indigenous groups to farmers. In this introductory editorial we reflect on the papers, describe the growth of a participatory approach as part of the continuing evolution of science communication; explore a definition for participatory science communication; and consider some of the key concepts and issues that emerged.

Our final chapter reaffirms how 'responsible stagnation' (RS) can incorporate a different set of values and measures into an a-growth understanding of innovation. It argues for greater circulation of novel ideas to help mitigate the environmental and social damage inevitable if we continue to prioritize GDP-measured growth and suggests that many of these are already in the system. Rather than creating an impediment to the quest for progress, the chapter demonstrates how RS, as an integral component of responsible innovation and not its antithesis, provides a framing mechanism through which assumptions about growth can be made visible and questioned. This opens possibilities for innovation directed at achieving social, ecological and economic equilibrium and for reducing input rather than always seeking to produce more. It concludes by examining the part that both innovation and stagnation will have to play in the transition to a more sustainable, more socially equitable society.

Innovation is generally considered to be the antidote to economic stagnation. But while the coupling of ‘responsible' and 'innovation’ has been much discussed, that of 'responsible stagnation' has gone largely unexplored. In this book, we take this concept seriously as a means to question the political economy of science, technology and innovation, both as policy and as process, and the problems which arise from unquestioned emphasis on innovation as the means to increase GDP. The book argues that examining what 'responsible stagnation' might contribute opens new space in the growing global discussion about RI, incorporating innovation in non-market oriented processes, goods and services which have strong societal benefit but do not necessarily contribute to GDP. It examines the conundrum of diminishing productivity returns and increased environmental and social hazards associated with attempts to increase GDP, and how taking a growth-agnostic approach contributes to recalibrating innovation around responsibility as its focal point. Drawing on insights from ecological and steady state economics, Science and Technology Studies, and social innovation across the world, this interdisciplinary group of scholars questions how the growth paradigm shapes and limits the innovation space, and how decoupling innovation from growth points toward myriad possibilities for facilitating human well-being in more environmentally and socially responsible ways.

Sharks are among the most feared animals in the world. Sharks are also among the most misrepresented. Historically, mass media has disproportionately portrayed sharks as deadly and dangerous human killers through melodramatic headlines, sensationalised stories and overly graphic accounts. This study builds on the works of McCagh et al. (2015) [19] and Fraser-Baxter and Medvecky (2018) [5] to provide a comprehensive analysis of the reporting of sharks in New Zealand (NZ) news media for the first time. Content analysis was used to analyse every shark related news media article across all available print newspapers from January 1st, 1989 to December 31st, 2018. Findings from this study outline that shark discourse in NZ has remained consistent over time. There was heavy focus on human-shark interaction and the dangers sharks may pose to humans. Conservation or policy focused articles were almost non-existent. The language used in shark related articles was most commonly emotive. The findings were consistent with previous research conducted on shark discourse.

Science communication, as a field and as a practice, is fundamentally about knowledge distribution; it is about the access to, and the sharing of knowledge. All distribution (science communication included) brings with it issues of ethics and justice. Indeed, whether science communicators acknowledge it or not, they get to decide both which knowledge is shared (by choosing which topic is communicated), and who gets access to this knowledge (by choosing which audience it is presented to). As a result, the decisions of science communicators have important implications for epistemic justice: how knowledge is distributed fairly and equitably. This paper presents an overview of issues related to epistemic justice for science communication, and argues that there are two quite distinct ways in which science communicators can be just (or unjust) in the way they distribute knowledge. Both of these paths will be considered before concluding that, at least on one of these accounts, science communication as a field and as a practice is fundamentally epistemically unjust. Possible ways to redress this injustice are suggested.

A common refrain in science communication ‘how to’ guides and textbooks is ‘tell a story’. But what are the downstream ethical effects of narrativizing science? This chapter considers the ethical implications of three strategies for effective science communication—narrativizing, framing and selling. Thinking about narratives, stories and framing highlight two special issues, which point to what we might think of as ethical hybridity. Firstly, science communication there is an ethical hybridity in the science being communicated and the act of communicating it. A secondly, there is ethical hybridity because of the breadth of what comes under the umbrella of science communication, each with its own underlying values. The chapter closes by considering ethical systems in adjacent fields to see if these can provide a roadmap for science communication.

Principlism might seem a lofty ideal, so this chapter takes an applied turn to ground the abstract discussion in real-world settings. This is done through three case studies of how the principles proposed in the previous chapters can be applied; the proposes principles being Utility (of the information communicated), Accuracy, Kairos and Generosity. The first case considered is a case the book opened with involving genetic testing. The second case we consider is the well-known L’Aquila earthquake case, and lastly, we consider the bias that arises because unsuccessful science communication fails to get mentioned. Each of these cases shows not only what is problematic, but also sheds light on how the principles can be used to be more ethical.

What is it that really makes communicating science a good, moral thing to do? And are there limits to the potential 'goodness' of science communication? In this article, we argue it is time we consider what an ethics of science communication might look like. Not only will this help us figure out what doing the right, moral thing might be. It also invites us to think through one of the most perplexing, challenging and pressing question for this still emerging field: what are the core unifying features of science communication?

Science has a fraught relationship with values. Indeed, claims to the objectivity of science are still often heard. Taking the well-known Tuskegee study as a starting point, this chapter makes explicit the science, to be worthwhile and good science, not only can’t be value-free, but shouldn’t aim to be so. This leads into a discussion on various forms of values, namely sociocultural values, economic values and ethical values. Given the centrality of ethics to this book, special attention is given to ethical values, including a discussion on how different ways to apply ethics.

Science communication sits funnily between the sciences and the humanities, sometimes pulled in one direction, sometimes in the other. This chapter focuses on the science side by considering three ways ethics and norms have already been included in science and the scientific process. These are the Mertonian norms of science which focus on science itself, the participant-centred bioethical principles that are generally applied to all research involving humans, and finally, the more recent Responsible Research and Innovation move, which is more broadly socially and environmentally concerned. The chapter closes with a discussion on the importance of communication in each of these.

Drawing on what has been so far discussed, this chapter turns face on to the task at hand and proposes a set of ethical principles of science communication. After reviewing existing effort to move science communication down the path of ethical principles, this chapter discusses ethics in an applied setting to make a case for why principlism and relational ethics are especially helpful in making headway into an ethics of science communication. The chapter then proposes four principles for an ethics of science communication, namely Utility (of the information communicated), Accuracy, Kairos and Generosity. These are each described and defined with reference to previous chapters.

This chapter introduces the relationship between valuing knowledge and valuing science communication as a way to open the discussion on the role of ethics in science communication. The main ideas and concepts that are discussed in the book are presented, from core ethical issues in science communication to a brief overview of existing ethical principles relevant for science communication. An overview of the structure of the book is also provided.

Science communication is as much about communication as it is about science (if not more). In this chapter, we turn to the communication side of the field and presents existing ethical codes and principles from communication-related fields closely linked to various forms of science communication. Beginning with a case study of a science journalism to set the scene, the chapter then presents an overview of journalism ethics, public relations ethics and ethical principles from communication associations and discussed what these can bring to our understanding of ethics relevant to science communication. The chapter closes with a discussion on the role of rhetoric in science communication.