After initial prompts on PSCI-Com, Big Chat, Twitter and with the Advisory Group there have been several discussions. These have happening online, offline, by email and by phone which means some topics have not been publicly aired (within the context of this discussion) until now.
I’ve summarised a range of themes that have emerged from this initial discussion under three headings: Issues that professionalisation could help with, Tools and mechanisms, and Concerns. These are not presented in any order of priority and are deliberately presented without any analysis.
What do you think?
Issues that professionalisation could help
- Quality of science communication and public engagement (noting that enthusiasm doesn’t necessarily correlate with quality)
- Avoiding reinventing the wheel, having a shared knowledge of practice
- Improve diversity within the sector
- Improve diversity in the publics we reach
- Creating spaces / mechanisms for sharing of new ideas
- Having shared principles or code of practice (eg understanding and meeting the needs of your audience, representing science appropriately, considering ethics…)
- The sector can be cliquey and aggressive due to competition
- Advocacy for the sector with other sectors who could use our skills, funders, those who buy our services/products etc etc
- Sector-wide needs eg insurance
- Improve bridges between theory and practice
- Creating coherency in portfolio careers
Tools and mechanisms
- Don’t create a new body
- Liaise with related sector organisations (eg journalism, theatre) to link in PE-STEM criteria to existing criteria
- Professionalism might not be the right term
- Have accredited courses and training
- Reviewers and peer reviews
- Write a Cookbook of techniques* (akin to the Exploratorium’s Exhibit Cookbook)
- Write synthesises of what we know about key topics for the sector (eg why people engage with science, behaviour change, how kids choose careers, how to ensure content (not spectacle) is king…)
- Festivals can be places to showcase activities as well as run CPD
- Have a tiered knowledge structure* eg Bronze, Silver, Gold with Bronze being entry level, Silver being what most people in the sector will get easily, Gold being for those pushing the boundaries.
- Bursaries for MSc places
- Consumer ratings akin to eBay, Trip Advisor
- Develop a Community of Learning
- Exchange visits
- Mentoring programmes
Concerns raised
- Homogenisation of practice / offer
- Loss of creativity and innovation
- Overlooking practical expertise for MSc (and other academic qualifications)
- Who reviews / accredits - how can they know the engagement practice AND the science content?
- No-one takes this seriously so it gains no traction with employers, funders etc
- Why does STEM needs its own communication / engagement profession – what about the humanities?
The framework that came out of the Science For All consultation was raised. It’s worth noting that this was intended for scientists/researchers and has since been progressed into the PE Lens for the Researcher Development Framework. It could be a useful starting point for developed eg a tiered charter mark.
* These were suggested by Penny Fidler, ASDC
