What next?

We presented our work to the Forum in November, leaving them with three questions to think about.

1. The sector is poorly understood. To what extent would work to better characterise the different clusters within the sector for example, the languages, motivations, diversity, and economics that make up each cluster, be useful?
2. There are no agreed quality standards. Would a clear articulation of what quality science communication and public engagement practice encompass be a helpful step forward?
3. Professionalisation is happening in a piecemeal way, who should be taking ownership of the current appetite for, and emerging practice around, better professional recognition for science communicators? 

Our formal role in this work is now complete but we have heard on the grapevine that there may be people within the Forum are taking some of this forward. We'll share more if/when we can.

Processes of quality science communication - a draft framework

I mentioned in a previous post about quality standards for science communication that we'd be discussing them at the BIG Event 2017. In that session we explored two frameworks with the intention of creating a draft quality framework for science communication / public engagement with STEM.

We looked at the frameworks because one key element of professionalisation is having some minimum standards for processes/work. One of the concerns people have raised in this exploration of professionalisation is that creating core quality criteria will not be possible because of the diversity of practice within science communication. A related concern has been a fear of quashing creativity.

However, I’ve found that there are some basic ‘rules’ that I find myself repeating when I’m working with people new to science communication and public engagement. What I find interesting, is that this isn’t written down anywhere. As a community, I am pretty confident that we all know these core principles, but we haven’t documented them, nor allowed them to be critiqued. Because of this hunch I was hopeful that at BIG we could make a sensible start on a framework that would outline our common principles of good practice.

We looked at two frameworks: the 6 Ps of Public Engagement and the Ten Principles of Science Education. Throughout this work we have deliberately used science communication and public engagement interchangeably. This is because our community seems to use the terms this way, and there isn’t any current agreed definition for either term. The two frameworks were chosen to represent two large sub-groups within science communication: education (formal/informal) and public engagement.

After looking at the two frameworks we used a pinpointing exercise to answer the question: what is good quality science communication? Each person wrote down answers and they were clustered. The resultant clusters were named in agreement with the group. These are the resultant clusters - written as they were in the workshop. Do you agree with them? Is there anything missing? Is there anything here that doesn't apply to your work? How should we change the language? Should we change the order?

1.Accurate portrayal of science

• Have science within our work.
• Being truthful about the how science works and its role in society.
• Representing science in a way that is appropriate for the audiences.

2. Being aware of how the work fits into the wider sector 

• Knowing how the work contributes to the wider ecosystem of science communication.

3. Recognise the diversity of possible outcomes

• The importance of emotionally engaging with audiences and that changes in emotion are valuable outcomes.
• Understanding the purpose of science is a valuable outcome.
• Skills are valuable outcomes.

4. Build on previous experience

• Look at, and learn from, what others have done.
• Look at, and learn from, what others are doing.
• Learn from what you have done in the past.
• Ask others for advice.

 5. Audiences

• Know who you are trying to reach.
• Meet the needs of those you are reaching.
• Modulate your practice in response to audience responses.
• It’s OK to exclude groups as you target others.

6. Purpose and progression

• Decide what it is you want to achieve (linked to outcomes section) and be clear about it.
• Make sure you manage expectations.
• Being clear on where your work is on a range of degrees of involvement (link to the Ladder of Participation).
• Provide tools for next steps / progression.

Alongside these principles, some people highlighted values that are common to the sector:

• Empower people to be involved with science at any appropriate level.
• Be accessible.
• Recognise diversity.
• Be a companion.
• Have a commitment to excellence (don’t put people off, don’t be crap).

Cautions:

• Just because it’s easy to measure, doesn’t mean that’s the only thing you should measure.
• Don’t expect audiences to go on a journey of progression to assessment.
• Frameworks should be advisory and not slavishly followed.

Other frameworks that were highlighted in the session were Participation Cymru, Arnstein's Ladder of Participation and the 10 Principles of CitizenScience from the Natural History Museum, UK.

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.

What did we think about the idea of professionalisation?

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

Who could professionalisation be for?

Since we posed the question about the professionalisation of PE and science communication we’ve had lots of interesting questions. There seems to be a feeling that the sector is increasingly diverse so how can we possibly agree on enough to merit a profession?

People have noted that many in the sector are putting a science slant onto an existing profession (or trade, or craft). Writers and journalists can agree by codes of conduct of journalism, producers of shows can align themselves with theatre practitioners, performers of science shows can turn to Equity for professional development and advocacy, and scientists who communicate can continue to progress through their usual performance criteria based in their HEI.

On a practical note, in the context of this project, this raises an interesting question. Should we try to negotiate links with other sectors to see if science communication examples would apply according to their codes of conduct and professional development? Or do we think there is enough of a community of science communicators to merit a bespoke organisation or structure?

I've sketched out a diagram to try illustrate this. It's not meant to be definitive, but something to provoke discussion.

On a more fundamental note: why does STEM need its own communication and engagement profession, skills and training?