STATE OF ART ON THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that met in Washington DC last month1 deliberated on the forms and functions of science communication. They raised 14 important questions pertaining to three important strands of science communication. It is refreshing to note they are included as part of a research agenda. Refreshing because it creates a window of opportunity for fellows like me to inform recalcitrant minds that science communication is as scientific a pursuit as tinkering with hard and soft tools/techniques/models and that it calls for a logical framework to pursue it as an inclusive engagement process. I call this state of the art also because it is probably amongst the most recent and recognizes several interfaces of science communication with real Quality-of-life implications. The parameters implicit in the framework can be suitably superimposed on locations and related challenges across political, social and cultural contexts.
Please look at the 14 questions carefully. I compliment the academies for this timely deliberation. It is timely because opportunities for science communication are growing significantly. Communicators can use these 14 questions to strengthen the logical frameworks of their interventions. Public policies that invite communities to understand the implications of developments in science and technology because of their influence on quality of life provide templates for communication-based engagement. India’s robust development-oriented approaches establish a real-life connect with even such aspects as waste management, sanitation and health. Will it not be wise to also see if the spread and depth of circumstances that transform learning to action are aligned with the stated goals of reducing externalities? Some of the focal points of such enabling circumstances include the architecture and ease of implementing regulations, support through incentives/disincentives and institutional mechanisms that deliver information in a timely manner. The latter should also build capacities to engage in well informed collective action. It is high time these three aspects receive their due attention by communicators. They need to “also” go beyond top-down deficit-model based supply of information on basics of science and technology. “Also”, because we cannot defocus from basics and that alone cannot be the whole programme. I invite responses from such communicators/managers ofcommunication programmes who believe science communication is not ‘scientific’ enough and science communicators are not scientists
Please look up the 14 questions from the cited reference and try to justify the stand that science communicators are not scientists. I invoke a call for rational thinking that science communication dynamics is as robust a field of science as hard/soft tools/techniques/models. The ability to use, devise and apply logical frameworks calls for a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative attributesof content, timeliness, tools of communication, interpretation of biases and the ability to develop scenarios about engagement that can be successful or otherwise. I once again congratulate the Academies in the stated reference for their deliberations. I reinforce my submission about the urgentneed to respect science communicators as scientists with a call that science communication should not be trivialized as cosmetic. In fact science communication is probably a platform for convergence for policies, programmes and their impacts. Please also look up the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The 17 goals and 169 targets are excellent platforms for engagement. Is it possible to even remotely argue these are “too scientific” for science communication/ communicators? Another classic reference in this context is also presented for your reference2. This also means we need to go beyond an overemphasis on beliefs and related branding. Studies on beliefs as thrusts for science communication should be truly incisive to respect cultural and developmental priorities of communities they interpret. It is important to also propose ways and means of overcoming challenges and not stop at some self perpetuating inferences that could be speculations at best.
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon