Science communication fellowship programs as gatekeepers

Abstract

Science communication fellowship programs act as gatekeepers to the skills and opportunities they provide scientists and science communicators. In this role, they may either resist or reproduce inequities present in society at large. We conducted interviews with 25 US-based science communication fellowship directors representing 23 programs to investigate (1) what types of capital these programs provide to fellows and (2) what rules and norms may shape access to these programs. Our results suggest that these programs connect fellows to rich forms of cultural and social capital in the form of experiential learning and mentorships. However, access to these programs is likely shaped by forms of infrastructure, literacy, and community acceptance. Maintaining the status quo in these organizations may not be enough to resist social inequity, and we finish this article with a call for reflexivity and actionable transformation within these programs.

Minoritized Scientists in the United States: An Identity Perspective to Science Communication

“…The results of this study have important implications for science communication training. Most training programs, from short-term skills-based training (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017) to year-long fellowships (Bennett et al, 2022; Roca et al, 2020), do not fully embrace participants’ identities to develop culturally tailored training. Science communication training should consider, based on the results of this study, the priorities of people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.…”

“…Codes and themes were then examined by all co-authors and discussed collectively to determine the most relevant ones in relation to the research questions. We used an approach oriented by constructivist–interpretivist research paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005, as cited in Bennett et al, 2022) instead of the traditional quantitative approach to intercoder reliability. This alternative paradigm uses meaning-oriented methodologies to produce scientific knowledge, instead of focusing on measurements as quantitative research analysis does.…”

“…These authors proposed a culturally responsive practice in science communication training. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to reflect on how the White racial identity shapes perspectives, experiences, and responses of marginalized people, including access to science communication trainings (Bennett et al, 2022). By recognizing that identity affects communication practices not only for people from minoritized groups but also for people from all backgrounds, it is possible to develop science communication approaches and training that does not center White identity.…”

“…The lack of equity in science communication is a direct result of STEM cultural norms that are shaped by the dominant U.S. cultural norms: Eurocentric, White, masculine, heteronormative, able-bodied, affluent, and neurotypical (Bennett et al, 2022; Callwood et al, 2022). Current STEM cultural norms directly impact science communication training spaces, as the main and dominant voices in this field are predominantly White educated men (Puritty et al, 2017; Valdez-Ward et al, 2023).…”

Science communicators from marginalized backgrounds challenge STEM cultural norms to promote community belonging

“…The current state of STEM in the U.S. perpetuates inequalities, with dominant voices in science communication being predominantly white, educated, and male [Bennett, Dudo & Besley, 2022;Callwood, Weiss, Hendricks & Taylor, 2022]. This lack of diversity influences inclusivity and validation for marginalized individuals [Chen et al, 2022;Puritty et al, 2017].…”