People in science communication

When we're thinking about quality science communication we can consider the processes and the people. I've shared a potential framework for the processes of science communication. But how do we support the people who do science communication to deliver good science communication?

If we agree on what good quality science communication looks like (and I'm not making any guarantees that we can!), then we should be able to identify knowledge, skills and attributes that people in the field hold.

I know that not everyone in the science communication sector will agree they work in the field of education, but many do (in a recent survey published by the British Science Assocation approximately 30% of those responding the survey said they worked in education, another third worked in science communication and 21% in public engagement). The Higher Education Academy has developed a professional development framework for use by those who teach in universities. The UKPSF (UK Professional Standards Framework) is straightforward and comprehensive. It covers three areas: activity, knowledge and values.

The UKPSF
Activities:
A1: Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study 
A2: Teach and/or support learning
A3: Assess and give feedback to learners
A4: Develop effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance
A5: Engage in continuing professional developments in subjects/disciplines and their pedagogy, incorporating research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practices

x

Knowledge:
K1: The subject material
K2: Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme
K3: How students learn, both generally and within their subject/discipline area
K4: The use and value of appropriate learning technologies
K5: Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching 
K6: The implications of quality assurance and quality enhancement for academic and professional practice with a particular focus on teaching 

Values:
V1: Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities
V2: Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunity for learners 
V3: Use evidence informed approaches and the outcomes from research, scholarship and continuing professional development 
V4: Acknowledge the wider context in which higher education operates recognising the implications for professional practice

How relevant is this for science communicators? Perhaps we change the word learn for something else - engage? 

During the 2009 Science for All consultation Graphic Science and the NCCPE developed a draft attributes framework. Does this work better?

Are there any other frameworks that you use? The Institute for Outdoor Learning are also developing professional standards, are these more relevant than the UKPSF? 

Processes of quality science communication

Many interesting things have emerged through this work. Some have been new ideas for me (such as the economics of science communication), some are long-standing issues (such as the diversity of aims of our work).

The idea of what constitutes good quality science communication is something that we all think about (who doesn't want to do good or excellent work?), but as far as I know we don't have any agreed standards. Through the ScoPPES work it's clear that there is a concern of homogenising our work and losing creativity by developing frameworks and standards. I'm not so sure about this. Many creative sectors agree standards. Is it about finding the right ones?

Through the work of the RCUK Catalysts programme, Rick Holliman and his colleagues at the Open University and in collaborating schools developed a framework for public engagement with research: the Ps of Public Engagement with Research. They are posed as a series of questions to help researchers plan their public engagement work. I've tweaked them a little for science communication / public engagement more broadly:

People - Who could participate? What expertise is needed to participate? How will participation be recognised?
Processes - how will you meet the needs of everyone in the project? What governs the process of engagement?
Purposes - what are you trying to achieve? What is the aim of your intervention?
Participation - how will you ensure that everyone's participation is valued? Are there any ethical issues you need to address?
Performance - how will you monitor and evaluate your performance? How does your work build on previous science communication?
Politics - what are the wider contexts you need to be aware of?
Preparedness - is everyone ready to engage? What skills and competencies are required? What has happened before in this area and can we learn from it?

If we turn these from questions to statements, I think we can see the beginning of a quality framework:
People - the people involved are well identified and their needs understood.
Processes - the intervention meets the needs of the public, and other partners / collaborators.
Purposes - the aim of the work is clearly stated.
Participation - the work is undertaken ethically with everyone's participation valued.
Performance - the work is evaluated and findings shared.
Politics - the work takes wider contexts into consideration.
Preparedness - the people involved have the appropriate skills and competencies to participate. The work builds on previous activities.

During our conversations earlier in the year, one concern that arose was about assessment of science communication activity. If there were to be some form of accreditation of science communication activities who would be able to assess both the format and the content? The above framework misses out any reference to the representation of the science and a commitment to representing the science honestly.

Is this a useful starting point? What else is missing? Or is this something that we shouldn't be trying to develop?

I'll be discussing this at the BIG Event next week. If you're there, come along and join in the session. If not, I'd love to hear your thoughts here, or through a direct message.

The Science Communication sector - what is it?

As you know, this project was set up to explore if professionalisation could be of benefit to the science communication sector. During our conversations with science communicators, several sector-wide issues have arisen that will influence if, and how, professionalisation could move forwards. Many of these issues are well recognised, but some are less obvious or less frequently discussed.

Do you recognise these characteristics of our sector?

1. People working within science communication are motivated by a wide range of agendas
2. People working within science communication have many different institutional homes (e.g., freelance, science centre, museums…) and therefore draw on different disciplines (e.g., education, interpretation, performance…)
3. It is not clear how many people currently work within science communication and of those, which currently lack routes for career progression and professional development
4. The operational structures within science communication are very diverse, with some people operating as businesses, others are volunteers and for some it is an occasional or add-on aspect of their work
5. There is a limited body of knowledge about the distinctive features of science communication
6. Some argue that science is a specialism within broader communication practice
7. There are no agreed and shared quality standards for science communication
8. The underpinning economics of the sector make it piecemeal, competitive, with little job security, unclear career progression routes and results in a community with little autonomy
9. Funding has been fragmented, often responding to a short-term need, rather than in the sector overall

We shared these (along with a report) to the National Forum for STEM. In response they have asked us to look at mapping the sector so we can understand more about its make up (issues 2, 3, 4), to explore quality frameworks for science communication (7), and to look at possible frameworks to identify knowledge, skills and attributes for science communicators (7 and 5).

Helen will be at the BIG Event next week exploring these next steps in more depth.