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.