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?