From the margins to the mainstream: deconstructing science communication as a white, Western paradigm

Abstract

In this commentary we are concerned with what mainstream science communication has neglected through cultural narrowness and ambient racism: other practitioners, missing audiences, unvalued knowledge, unrecognised practices. We explore examples from First Nations Peoples in the lands now known as Australia, from Griots in West Africa and from People's Science Movements in India to help us reimagine science communication. To develop meaningfully inclusive approaches to science communication, we argue there is an urgent need for the ‘mainstream’ to recognise, value and learn from science communication practices that are all too often seen as at ‘the margins’ of this field.

An Epidemic Analogy Highlights the Importance of Targeted Community Engagement in Spaces Susceptible to Misinformation

“…Such approaches illustrate the transformative power of language, culture, and Indigenous knowledge in attempts to communicate in settings that are potentially rife with misinformation. They also emphasize the benefit of culturally assertive approaches and practices which build on and harness the values of communities in question (Canfield and Menezes, 2020;Finlay et al, 2021;Wilkinson, 2021).…”

Investigating diversity in European audiences for public engagement with research: Who attends European Researchers’ Night in Ireland, the UK and Malta?

“…Demographic details of European Researchers' Night attendees are scant, especially when it comes to audience ethnicity. However, the general trend seen across public engagement events in non-formal learning spaces is an over-representation of white majority participants [15][16][17]. This has led to calls for change in how such events are run [18,19] and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of audience profiles.…”

Reorienting science communication towards communities

“…In a more general sense, successful communication outside the Western mainstream is frequently community-oriented rather than pitched at individual or mass levels, and is communicated by community members within their own communities. This includes health communication with First Peoples on the continents of Australia and Africa, for whom the community level is one of the most important and common levels for discussing issues, building knowledge and making decisions [Finlay, Raman et al, 2021;Bagamoyo College of Arts et al, 2002;Chandler et al, 2015;Finlay and Wenitong, 2020;Junyent and Rasekoala, 2019;Levy, 2015]. The growing field of knowledge brokering is similarly predicated on building interpersonal relationships, in this case primarily between researchers and policy-makers.…”

“…Of course, some diversity in ethnicity, culture, language, gender, sexuality, class, religion and disability is already present among science communicators, at least to an extent, but its deep value and importance seems inadequately understood and often celebrated only at the superficial level of acknowledging its existence. This superficial measure aside, science communication remains profoundly exclusionary in complex ways that prohibit greater diversity and perpetuate marginalisation, as numerous authors have recently noted [Finlay, Raman et al, 2021;Roberson and Orthia, 2021;Brown, Roche and Hurley, 2020;Canfield et al, 2020;Dawson, 2019;Márquez and Porras, 2020;Orthia, 2020;Rasekoala, 2020]. Much more work needs to be done to redress this, and it will likely go hand-in-hand with a communities-oriented approach because of the deep engagement that it entails.…”