Dr Declan Fahy presented his thoughts about Tensions
Declan argued that science communication as a field of academic discipline has evolved due to external needs and pressures. He noted work by Professor Jon Agar who analysed key trends in science - including the involvement of the public in science and that programmes for the public understanding of science in the UK emerged in response to high-profile issues such as the MMR vaccine.
These are the tensions highlighted by Declan:
- The call for public participation - the tension between democratic participation versus communication by scientific elites aimed at public legitimation.
- The field's 'co-dependent relationship with deficit thinking'. Dietram Scheufele noted that deficit model thinking has underpinned much of the work labelled as 'misinformation and disinformation'.
- The relationship between civic communication and promotional communication and professionalisation. Is this science communication that aims at civic engagement, citizen knowledge or empowerment? Or is it public relations for universities and research centres a way to project a favourable image to funders and a way to enhance research and funding metrics?
- For the final tension, Declan noted a reflection from Professor Sarah Davis in her evaluation of the PCST Conference in Rotterdam,
“The most engaging coffee break conversations I had featured things that were explicitly not being talked about in conference sessions: the relationship between science and the military; researchers' role in bringing about wealth inequality; colonialism and neocolonialism in science and science communication”.
Sarah Davis picked up on the tendency of sessions to pick up on smaller / macro projects and issues within conference sessions - failure to address large-scale issues around science and society. This will involve science communication research taking a more critical stance.
Declan agued that the Aberdeen conference offers a chance to write new histories, to offer other ways of understanding science communication. Finally, he made the closing remarks that he hopes conference participants will produce work that locates different points of historical origin for science communication, outside of only Western contexts.
From the discussion the group reflected on the point that a lot of the science communication theories were reactionary - should we as science communicators be planning rather than only be reacting? Too much reaction can get in the way of the progression of the field. Rather than seeing science communication as a form of crisis communication should we be looking for a philosophy of science communication?
Tensions are essential - there are so many different stakeholders but what is the healthy way to solve tensions and can science communicators help this process?