Search

The aim of this report is to explore the different roles science communicators assume – or should be assuming – to meet the challenges and demands in the contemporary science communication landscape. On the basis of earlier RETHINK research on how science communicators employ innovative techniques to reach underserved audiences, six roles were formulated that can be – and are – adopted by science communication practitioners to enhance their connections with a wider range of audiences: The Broker, creates connections between target audience and actors to obtain access to a target group, links with other actors to supply, involves all actors in dialogue; The Listener, connects to target audience with active listening and empathy and integrates that what is learned in communication activity; The Includer, breaks down physical, social, cultural barriers to give audience access to resources, spaces, knowledge & opportunities; The Enabler, provides target audience with access to information, resources, spaces, and changes power dynamics between science-society; The Educator, contributes to understanding scientific method and process, and critical thinking skills leading to misinformation identification; and The Entertainer, gets scientific communication across via games, arts, performances, hands-on activities & storytelling.

The current science communication ecosystem is highly fragmented, dynamic and complex. This provides science communicators with both opportunities, but also leads to difficult challenges. The RETHINK project aims to understand the changing landscape of science communication and research, experiment with and develop methods for science communicators to stimulate open, transparent and productive science-society interactions. In the past two and a half years RETHINK has strived to understand this complex ecosystem. Whilst science communicators generally recognize opportunities to strengthen the ties between science and society, many science communication practitioners and scholars involved in the RETHINK project perceive a disconnect between science and society, i.e., a disconnect with their audiences. Four (interrelated) developments play an important role in this disconnect, and have been explored in earlier research by RETHINK. First, the boundaries between science and society have become blurred, confronting the public with a vast amount of information from a variety of sources and as a result, facts are increasingly becoming mixed with opinions and scientific issues are becoming politized. Second, science communication has become heavily digitalized, fundamentally changing the relationship between science and society, leading to new channels and resources for science communication, and facilitating the creation of information about science by a variety of publics online. Third, the rapid proliferation of misinformation and affiliated polarization, magnified by the pandemic’s sudden emergence, changes the dynamics between science and society further. Fourth, misconceptions of how citizens make sense of complex science-related problems and the inability to reach all members of society equally when communicating about science are sobering insights for science communication professionals: their practice might not reach their audiences as effectively as thought. The contemporary science communication ecosystem is thus highly complex and science communicators are working to find ways to address the disconnect between science and society, something RETHINK aims to account for in this study. Traditional roles (e.g., conduits, watchdogs) for science communication professionals might no longer be suitable and sufficient in the current landscape under varying circumstances. Therefore, the aim of this report is to explore the different roles science communicators assume – or should be assuming – to meet the challenges and demands in the contemporary science communication landscape. On the basis of earlier RETHINK research on how science communicators employ innovative techniques to reach underserved audiences, six roles were formulated that can be – and are – adopted by science communication practitioners to enhance their connections with a wider range of audiences: The Broker, creates connections between target audience and actors to obtain access to a target group, links with other actors to supply, involves all actors in dialogue; The Listener, connects to target audience with active listening and empathy and integrates that what is learned in communication activity; The Includer, breaks down physical, social, cultural barriers to give audience access to resources, spaces, knowledge & opportunities; The Enabler, provides target audience with access to information, resources, spaces, and changes power dynamics between science-society; The Educator, contributes to understanding scientific method and process, and critical thinking skills leading to misinformation identification; and The Entertainer, gets scientific communication across via games, arts, performances, hands-on activities & storytelling. This deliverable reports how a broad range of different science communicators experimented with these different roles in science communication. Accordingly, we seek to conceptually deepen the understanding of these roles by drawing from other RETHINK research on role repertoires. Repertoires link scientists’ underlying perspective on science-society interactions to the activities they deploy. By expanding the conceptual scope by also including repertoires, we aim to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how roles in science communication take shape. Our approach To research the role repertoires that science communication professionals apply in their practice, but also about the roles that seem to be lacking, particularly in relation to addressing the disconnect between science and society, we facilitated communicating scientists, science journalists and other science communicators in conducting small-scale reflective practice experiments in their own science communication practice. The 23 participants in these experiments volunteered to experiment with and reflect on their interactions with their audiences after having participated in various RETHINK workshops. The reflective practice experiments consisted of: 1) a ‘kick-off’ interview, in which the challenges experienced by practitioners were identified, and subsequently small (thought) experiments were designed; 2) conduct of the small (thought) experiments, of which participants filled in multiple reflection diary entries to keep track of their experiences in experimenting; and 3) a second interview to discuss their experiences. From this data, we performed a qualitative analysis in which we adopted a deductive approach to find these six roles – we constructed various role repertoires per participant while simultaneously looking for overarching themes and patterns across the various participants. Findings Our findings suggest that the participants assumed the various aforementioned roles when acting at the science-society interface. In order to overcome the disconnect between science and society, we emphasize the importance of roles that engage in two-way (or multi-way) communication, i.e., the Broker, Enabler and Listener are important, and particularly the role of the Listener, which was occasionally enabled by the reflective practice experiments. Furthermore, participants mentioned the importance of establishing connections between science and society. Yet, only a few participants apply these roles and even fewer engage in activities that aim to gain insights into what society needs and wants and enable this information to feed back into the scientific process. Furthermore, three overarching challenges can be identified that concern how the different roles in science communication were displayed by the participants: 1) the need to strengthen roles that facilitate two-way communication; 2) audiences are frequently undefined; and 3) there are unproductive perspectives of society. What now? On the basis of this study, we conclude that valuable science communication activities are undertaken to bridge/overcome the found disconnect between the sciences and society, and our results show that all six roles (Educator, Broker, Listener, Includer, Enabler and Entertainer) are relevant and warrant cultivation. However, based on the challenges we found, we conclude that a concerted effort is necessary. Therefore, in order to strengthen the plethora of roles needed to overcome the disconnect between science and society, we propose two new roles that operate on the level of governance i.e., the Change Agent (‘actors who promote and practically facilitate a culture of science communication’) and the Playmaker (‘actors who assume problem ownership or either have (implied) responsibility about issues that arise at the science- society interface and also have the means to facilitate change’). Ultimately, we propose three strategies (stimulate reflective practice in science communication; invest in learning networks; promote science communication through policy) to strengthen science communication roles.

The current science communication ecosystem is highly fragmented, dynamic and complex. This provides science communicators with both opportunities, but also leads to difficult challenges. The RETHINK project aims to understand the changing landscape of science communication and research, experiment with and develop methods for science communicators to stimulate open, transparent and productive science-society interactions. In the past two and a half years RETHINK has strived to understand this complex ecosystem. Whilst science communicators generally recognize opportunities to strengthen the ties between science and society, many science communication practitioners and scholars involved in the RETHINK project perceive a disconnect between science and society, i.e., a disconnect with their audiences.Four (interrelated) developments play an important role in this disconnect, and have been explored in earlier research by RETHINK. First, the boundaries between science and society have become blurred, confronting the public with a vast amount of information from a variety of sources and as a result, facts are increasingly becoming mixed with opinions and scientific issues are becoming politized. Second, science communication has become heavily digitalized, fundamentally changing the relationship between science and society, leading to new channels and resources for science communication, and facilitating the creation of information about science by a variety of publics online. Third, the rapid proliferation of misinformation and affiliated polarization, magnified by the pandemic’s sudden emergence, changes the dynamics between science and society further. Fourth, misconceptions of how citizens make sense of complex science-related problems and the inability to reach all members of society equally when communicating about science are sobering insights for science communication professionals: their practice might not reach their audiences as effectively as thought.The contemporary science communication ecosystem is thus highly complex and science communicators are working to find ways to address the disconnect between science and society, something RETHINK aims to account for in this study. Traditional roles (e.g., conduits, watchdogs) for science communication professionals might no longer be suitable and sufficient in the current landscape under varying circumstances. Therefore, the aim of this report is to explore the different roles science communicators assume – or should be assuming – to meet the challenges and demands in the contemporary science communication landscape.On the basis of earlier RETHINK research on how science communicators employ innovative techniques to reach underserved audiences, six roles were formulated that can be – and are – adopted by science communication practitioners to enhance their connections with a wider range of audiences: The Broker, creates connections between target audience and actors to obtain access to a target group, links with other actors to supply, involves all actors in dialogue; The Listener, connects to target audience with active listening and empathy and integrates that what is learned in communication activity; The Includer, breaks down physical, social, cultural barriers to give audience access to resources, spaces, knowledge & opportunities; The Enabler, provides target audience with access to information, resources, spaces, and changes power dynamics between science-society; The Educator, contributes to understanding scientific method and process, and critical thinking skills leading to misinformation identification; and The Entertainer, gets scientific communication across via games, arts, performances, hands-on activities & storytelling.This deliverable reports how a broad range of different science communicators experimented with these different roles in science communication. Accordingly, we seek to conceptually deepen the understanding of these roles by drawing from other RETHINK research on role repertoires. Repertoires link scientists’ underlying perspective on science-society interactions to the activities they deploy. By expanding the conceptual scope by also including repertoires, we aim to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how roles in science communication take shape.Our approachTo research the role repertoires that science communication professionals apply in their practice, but also about the roles that seem to be lacking, particularly in relation to addressing the disconnect between science and society, we facilitated communicating scientists, science journalists and other science communicators in conducting small-scale reflective practice experiments in their own science communication practice. The 23 participants in these experiments volunteered to experiment with and reflect on their interactions with their audiences after having participated in various RETHINK workshops. The reflective practice experiments consisted of: 1) a ‘kick-off’ interview, in which the challenges experienced by practitioners were identified, and subsequently small (thought) experiments were designed; 2) conduct of the small (thought) experiments, of which participants filled in multiple reflection diary entries to keep track of their experiences in experimenting; and 3) a second interview to discuss their experiences. From this data, we performed a qualitative analysis in which we adopted a deductive approach to find these six roles – we constructed various role repertoires per participant while simultaneously looking for overarching themes and patterns across the various participants.FindingsOur findings suggest that the participants assumed the various aforementioned roles when acting at the science-society interface. In order to overcome the disconnect between science and society, we emphasize the importance of roles that engage in two-way (or multi-way) communication, i.e., the Broker, Enabler and Listener are important, and particularly the role of the Listener, which was occasionally enabled by the reflective practice experiments. Furthermore, participants mentioned the importance of establishing connections between science and society. Yet, only a few participants apply these roles and even fewer engage in activities that aim to gain insights into what society needs and wants and enable this information to feed back into the scientific process. Furthermore, three overarching challenges can be identified that concern how the different roles in science communication were displayed by the participants: 1) the need to strengthen roles that facilitate two-way communication; 2) audiences are frequently undefined; and 3) there are unproductive perspectives of society.What now?On the basis of this study, we conclude that valuable science communication activities are undertaken to bridge/overcome the found disconnect between the sciences and society, and our results show that all six roles (Educator, Broker, Listener, Includer, Enabler and Entertainer) are relevant and warrant cultivation. However, based on the challenges we found, we conclude that a concerted effort is necessary. Therefore, in order to strengthen the plethora of roles needed to overcome the disconnect between science and society, we propose two new roles that operate on the level of governance i.e., the Change Agent (‘actors who promote and practically facilitate a culture of science communication’) and the Playmaker (‘actors who assume problem ownership or either have (implied) responsibility about issues that arise at the science- society interface and also have the means to facilitate change’). Ultimately, we propose three strategies (stimulate reflective practice in science communication; invest in learning networks; promote science communication through policy) to strengthen science communication roles.

The current science communication ecosystem is highly fragmented, dynamic and complex. The number of actors, communication networks and platforms has increased and became more diverse. This has also increased the range of issues and values, ideologies and interests brought into the discussion. The sensemaking practices of citizens are heavily influenced by their personal situations, worldviews, values and emotions. Science communication practitioners need to constantly relate to and adapt their role and repertoires to what is required in the ever-changing field of science communication. What helps science communication professionals in dealing with the revolutionised science communication ecosystem – for example regarding dealing with uncertainty of science, (scientific) expertise that is publicly questioned by audiences, whilst providing clarity on misinformation presented online? How do they connect to the widely diverse and contextualised ways in which citizens make sense of science? And given the current science communication dynamics, how can one moderate constructive public discussions on science? We propose that adopting openness and reflexivity in the practice of science communication helps in dealing with these complex questions for practitioners and facilitates the establishment of constructive science-society interactions. Reflexivity is described as being aware of - and critically reflecting on - your own and other people’s situations, context and assumptions; and being capable to take actions on the basis of these insights. Openness is described as taking into account a wide range of information sources, perspectives, values and emotions; and being capable of changing your own opinion based on the offered arguments and stories. We asked science communicators, journalists and communicating scientists to experiment with reflective practice in their daily work. This report describes science communication practitioners' experiences with openness and reflexivity in relation to their science communication outputs and activities. Practitioners indicated they found new ways to connect to citizens and have conversations about underlying values and emotions. Therefore, with help of the reflection diary, participants mentioned they were able to reflect-in-action, which enabled them to intensify the interactions they had with audiences.

The current science communication ecosystem is widely diverse: science and society meet at multiple interfaces, communication takes place in several directions, and different models and ideologies are upheld. Moreover, digitalization intensifies the dynamics in this ecosystem in a fundamental manner. How can science communicators move forward purposefully and effectively in this highly complex ecosystem? From the perspective of RETHINK, we view the possibilities for scientists and scientific institutions to communicate and engage with the public and other stakeholders through the internet and online media as an important opportunity to strengthen science-society interactions. Evidently, scientists themselves play a pivotal role in strengthening the interaction between science and society, but in order to benefit from the opportunities of digitalization, they should be willing and able to engage with the public online. So, what motivates scientists to engage with the public, online or offline? What holds them back? The aim of this study is to provide insights into the incentives, disincentives and facilitators and barriers for scientists to engage in science communication.

The contemporary science communication ecosystem is complex: science and society meet each other at multiple interfaces, communication takes place in multiple directions and moreover, the different actors may have widely differing ideologies and assumptions. In addition, digitalization is intensifying the – already complex – dynamics in this ecosystem fundamentally. At the same time, digitalization also offers novel possibilities for scientists and scientific institutions to communicate and engage with the public and other stakeholders, and henceforth contribute to a better science-society relationship. Against this backdrop, this study aims to examine what motivates scientists to engage with the public through the internet and online media, and what holds them back herein.

Deliverable 4.1 provides a roadmapof activities for theseven national hubs of the project. These hubs, called Rethinkerspaces, will generate a deep and wide overview of ‘their’ national science communication landscape and act as testbeds and validation mechanisms for the research results of the project. Via their local communities, the Rethinkerspaces will be in charge of creating communities of inquiry to acquire insights into the emerging science communication landscape, map networks, actors, roles and repertoires, contribute to understand sensemaking practices and test a new quality of interactions framework. Besides, they will experiment with new strategies and train other actors in new ways of science communication. The Rethinkerspaces, based inseven European countries (Italy (ZML), the Netherlands (VU), Poland (CSC), Portugal (ITQB NOVA), Serbia (CPN), Sweden (V&A) and the United Kingdom (UWE), will become a learning environment to engage in a collective process of inquiry, experimentation and reflective learning.