No abstract

This paper argues that both the traditional normative models and the more refined (`continuity') models of public communication of science fail to account adequately for cases of `deviation', i.e. those cases when scientists address the public directly by skipping the usual stages of scientific communication. It is hypothesized that most of such cases are related to crisis situations and to the definition of scientific boundaries. Therefore, at least two modalities of public communication of science should be distinguished: one is the routine, generally unproblematic itinerary of a scientific idea through the different levels of communication as presented by the continuity models; and the other is the dramatic (re)assessment of boundaries and professional competences in the public arena that is required by marginal situations. Continuity models need to be supplemented by a multilevel, multivariate model which enables us to explain this second modality and to understand in more detail the role that the level of public communication plays when such a modality is activated.

This article reports on a content analysis of science coverage by the leading Italian newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, over a period of fifty years. Results show an expansion of such coverage over time, although it was increasingly “institutionalized” in new sections devoted to science and medicine. The typical science story can be described as dealing with biomedical issues, referring to a geographical context outside Italy, relying on uncontested scientific expertise and presenting the consequences of science activity in a positive fashion. However, deeper analysis suggests the presence of a marked dualism between two distinct journalistic genres: (1) “science-popularization,” which is characteristic of special sections, overwhelmingly dominated by biomedical topics, depicting science as straightforward, consensual, and bringing improvement to people's lives; and (2) “science as news,” dealing more frequently with other fields such as the physical sciences, paying closer attention to controversy and to the harmful consequences of scientific enterprise. A comparison with similar studies in other countries is also presented.

Public engagement (PE) activities have become a regular feature for several research institutions in Europe. However, while research and teaching functions can count on established indicators, PE functions are often performed as a sort of “goodwill exercise.” Few studies have focused on defining appropriate indicators and standards, particularly at the organizational level. An exploratory study was carried out on a sample of 40 European research institutions with a view to understanding whether the diffusion of PE activities has led to incorporating the PE perspective into “routine” activities of organizations. The results point to quite unequal performances among European research institutions. Also, while most research institutions examined have dedicated resources for PE activities, the study suggests that such activities are not yet considered essential. Performance indicators and standards might prove of great support for institutions and policy actors that wish to take seriously the challenge of public engagement and societal dialogue.

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.