PCST 2014

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The PCST conference attracts a substantial number of science communication academics and practitioners from all over the world. The conference is stimulating and refreshing but the size of it means that quality control is challenging for the organisers. This review highlights areas of both strengths and weaknesses whilst also making recommendations to the PCST committee for PCST 2016. The committee are encouraged to further strengthen the academic/practitioner combination and the international nature of the event. However, they are also recommended to ensure that work presented is of high quality with clear purposes and strong evaluative evidence presented.This was my third PCST conference, each time I've gone I've presented some element of my current research and/or practice. From early findings of my PhD in Malmo, Sweden, to the role of knitting as a place for meaningful conservations about science in Florence, Italy and this year we discussed changing cultures in U.K. universities to support engaged research in Salvador, Brazil. It is this blend of research and practice which makes PCST a unique and valuable conference. This is a big conference by science communication standards with over 500 delegates representing nearly 50 countries. The sheer size of it, and the way that PCST committee is structured, means a wide range of participants are present. We see practitioners and researchers at all stages of their careers presenting and participating. Bringing these groups together is something we've been recommending should happen in the U.K. for some time. Bringing these perspectives together can only improve the quality of science communication through including the lived experiences of the practitioner in research and incorporating academic insight into the fast-moving world of practice (see our chapter in the 2013 Science Communication Conference ebook http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/science-communication-conference/reporting-2013-conference). PCST has tried to be a bridge between these two communities for some time. Nevertheless, these still feel like divided communities, with academics pre-JCOM 13(03)(2014)R03

Moving Toward Inclusion: Participant Responses to the Inclusive SciComm Symposium

“…The case is the same for barriers caused by absence: current literature indicates similar examples. These include lack of funding (Mack et al, 2012;Taylor, 2014); lack of understanding, knowledge, training, or resources for doing inclusive science communication work (Dawson, 2014;Feinstein and Meshoulam, 2014); not assessing if inclusion efforts are actually inclusive (Mack et al, 2012;Featherstone, 2014); inadequate diversity among leadership in science communication efforts (Feinstein and Meshoulam, 2014;Pearson and Schuldt, 2014;National Science Foundation, 2018); limited opportunities or platforms; minimal networking, collaboration, or sharing of information (Falk et al, 2011;Chilvers, 2012;Berditchevskaia et al, 2017); and few opportunities for diverse, young scientists to be engaged in science (Calabrese Tan, 2010, 2019).…”

“…Finally, this study highlights the need for more coordinated efforts for inclusive science communication engagement that spans geography, audience, and scale. While participants identified various areas for development, it was clear that there was a desire for more information-sharing and collaboration across contexts to help practitioners, researchers, and other interested groups learn from each other's successes and failures (Falk et al, 2011;Featherstone, 2014;Treffry-Goatley, 2014).…”

“…Participants who expressed a knowledge-oriented response explained that the symposium made them think differently or taught them something (Mack et al, 2012;Featherstone, 2014). This theme had the most responses.…”

Science Communication Demands a Critical Approach That Centers Inclusion, Equity, and Intersectionality

“…One previous conference, the 2014 International Public Communication of Science and Technology conference (PCST), brought together science communication researchers and practitioners around the central theme of "science communication for social inclusion 3 and political engagement" (Featherstone, 2014;Treffry-Goatley, 2014). The PCST conference demonstrated a key tension in ISC; many ISC practitioners are not publishing their work but researchers look to the published literature to inform their research questions and seek funding.…”

“…The PCST conference demonstrated a key tension in ISC; many ISC practitioners are not publishing their work but researchers look to the published literature to inform their research questions and seek funding. There remains a significant shortage of research/practice collaborations that could ameliorate these challenges (Featherstone, 2014).…”