Emma Weitkamp

An exploration of the collaborative processes of making theatre inspired by science.

This research examined the collaborative processes of making theatre inspired by science through the analysis of 16 semi-structured interviews with individual collaborators (eight theatre practitioners and eight scientists). Interviews explored experiences, including their motivations, working processes, challenges, learning and understanding. Roles of scientists in the collaboration ranged from expert advisor to equal creative collaborator. Factors affecting partnerships included curiosity for each other’s practice, social interaction and mutual respect. The research suggests that scientists could be motivated to undertake ‘Sci-Art’ collaborations through personal interest, as well as previously identified motives such as encouragement from their department. The project also identified benefits to researchers from such collaborations, including developing new perspectives on their own practice.

Between ambition and evidence

Measuring impact may be challenging, but does that mean we should accept a lack of ambition? Researchers in all fields are grappling with the challenge of how to measure impact (in many different contexts, which naturally leads to many different approaches), and so perhaps it is not surprising that the ‘impact culture’ is spreading to public engagement. But is the field rising to the challenge or should we think more broadly about how we demonstrate impact, perhaps freeing individual and smaller projects from the need to measure public impact and allowing them instead to focus on formative development? This editorial explores some of the issues in the field.

A case study in serendipity: Environmental researchers use of traditional and social media for dissemination

In the face of demands for researchers to engage more actively with a wider range of publics and to capture different kinds of research impacts and engagements, we explored the ways a small number of environmental researchers use traditional and social media to disseminate research. A questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of different media as a tool to broker contact between researchers and a variety of different stakeholders (for example, publics, other researchers, policymakers, journalists) as well as how researchers perceive that their use of these media has changed over the past five years. The questionnaire was sent to 504 researchers whose work had featured in a policy-oriented e-news service. 149 valid responses were received (29%). Coverage in traditional media (newspapers, broadcast) not only brokers contact with other journalists, but is a good source of contact from other researchers (n=47, 62%) and members of the public (n=36, 26%). Although the use of social media was limited amongst our sample, it did broker contact with other researchers (n=17, 47%) and the public (n=10, 28%). Nevertheless, few environmental researchers were actively using social media to disseminate their research findings, with many continuing to rely on academic journals and face-to-face communication to reach both academic and public audiences.

Bridging the gap between science and policy: the importance of mutual respect, trust and the role of mediators

Around the world there are widespread efforts to ensure that policy decisions are based upon a sound evidence base, and in particular to facilitate closer integration between the research and policy communities. This commentary provides an overview of the current situation in different parts of the world relating to the opportunities that exist for policy makers to assimilate scientific findings, as well as the existing barriers perceived by both the policy and research communities. Mutual trust and respect between the relevant parties emerge as crucial factors in successful collaboration. Skilled mediators are also considered essential to ensuring effective communication; this may be via third parties such as NGOs, or news services and online portals to convey, ‘translate’ and place in a policy context the scientific findings. Mechanisms for improving researchers’ communication skills as well as increasing their awareness of the need to communicate proactively with the policy community are also considered in order to inform future practice in this area.

Exploring the ways environmental science is used and valued by policy-makers in Portugal: A case study

Policymakers, researchers and the general public seem to agree that there is a need for evidence based policies. Here we report on a case study which explores environmental policy making at the national and local levels in one European country, Portugal. The case study focuses on understanding how that scientific evidence is used and valued by policymakers. Our data show that in Portugal there are opportunities at national and local level for scientific evidence to influence environmental policymaking and there is a general belief amongst policymakers that scientific evidence is essential for the development of solid and trustworthy policies. However, challenges remain, including difficulties in working together and challenges imposed by the policy cycle. The bridge may not yet be fully constructed, but in Portugal, policymakers largely recognise the need for scientific evidence and the research community is beginning to reach out, looking for ways to connect with the policy community.

On the roles of scientists, press officers and journalists

This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a number of questions about the ways that new scientific research emerges from research institutions and in particular the role played by scientists, press officers and journalists in this process. This is not to suggest that the public don’t play an equally important role, and several articles in this issue raise questions about public engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play in one specific arena: that of news production. In this editorial I explore the increasing reliance of science journalists on public relations sources and consider what questions this raises for science communication.

Exploring serendipitous dialogue

Over the past decades there has been an increasing recognition of the need to promote dialogue between science and society. Often this takes the form of formal processes, such as citizen’s juries, that are designed to allow the public to contribute their views on particular scientific research areas. But there are also many less formal mechanisms that promote a dialogue between science and society. This editorial considers science festivals and citizen science in this context and argues that we need a greater understanding of the potential impacts of these projects on the individuals involved, both scientists and the public.

Branching out: new JCOM América Latina for dynamic science communication community

April marks a milestone in the history of JCOM, with the launch of new features for the International, English language journal alongside the launch of a sister journal, JCOM America Latina which will cater for the dynamic and fast growing Spanish and Portuguese speaking science communication community. Luisa Massarani, a long standing JCOM Editorial Board member, has led the development of JCOM America Latina and will act as the Editor for the new journal. JCOM and JCOM America Latina will work closely together, providing free, open access publishing for science communication research across the globe.

Considering what works: experiments in science communication

This issue of JCOM explores the question ‘what works in science communication?’ from a variety of angles, as well as focusing on the politically sensitive topic of climate change. While the rationales and purposes of science communication are many and varied, papers in this issue of JCOM consider how different presentations of astronomical images influence understanding, engagement and aesthetic appreciation amongst non-specialists [Smith et al., 2017]. Three papers consider facets of science communication in the polarised discourse on climate change in the US [see for example, Dunlap and McCright, 2015], Yeo et al. [2017] explore the impact of temperature on social media discussion of climate change and global warming, while Kahan [2017] and van der Linden, Leiserowitz and Maibach [2017] debate the value of consensus messaging, where communication focuses on highlighting the majority agreement of scientists on a topic that is perceived as controversial (e.g. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans).

From ‘post truth’ to e-persons, contemporary issues in science communication

The Science in Public Conference, held this year at the University of Sheffield, generated animated discussion of a wide range of topics. Six commentaries cover conference themes around engagement with science and technology and how science and technology are shaping what it means to be human. The commentaries range from discussions of our relationship with expertise and how science communication can better act as a knowledge broker in a time of ‘alternative facts’ to exploration of fictional narratives and how they might be used to open up dialogue about science and technology. Abstract