Characterised by a shift from a diffusion to a deliberation model of science communication

No abstract

No abstract

The last three decades have seen extensive reflection concerning how science communication should be modelled and understood. In this essay we propose the value of a cultural approach to science communication — one that frames it primarily as a process of meaning-making. We outline the conceptual basis for this view of culture, drawing on cultural theory to suggest that it is valuable to see science communication as one aspect of (popular) culture, as storytelling or narrative, as ritual, and as collective meaning-making. We then explore four possible ways that a cultural approach might proceed: by mobilising ideas about experience; by framing science communication through identity work; by focusing on fiction; and by paying attention to emotion. We therefore present a view of science communication as always entangled within, and itself shaping, cultural stories and meanings. We close by suggesting that one benefit of this approach is to move beyond debates concerning ‘deficit or dialogue’ as the key frame for public communication of science.

Social and political interest in science regularly prompts scientists to assume the role of public spokesperson. The article investigates this role of representing science as both “speaking on behalf of” science and symbolically “standing for” science and its organizations. With inspiration from the field of organizational communication, it is argued that science communication should be considered as an activity intimately linked with perceptions of identity and organizational culture. When scientists communicate publicly, they do not just disseminate knowledge, they also represent a particular sense making about what science, scientists, and scientific organizations are. Based on a qualitative analysis of 20 leading Danish scientists’ views on their own role in public communication, three different modes of representation are identified: Expert, Research Manager, and Guardian of Science. Each of these modes of representation implies particular notions of quality, audience, motivation, and learning in science communication.