Science Communication and Future Media - where next?

Science communication is reactive to the wider research community. A key example is the development of the sub-discipline of environmental communication in reaction to climate change (2010, B. Trench and M. Bucchi). Therefore to predict the future path of this practice, we must look towards the research landscape as a whole. One way to moderate the changes is to watch projects that are currently being funded. For each individual science area there will be “big players” to watch and these are usually a good starting point. These big names, (commonly government funded bodies), recognise their role within leading this as ‘pivotal’ (Science and Technology Committee, 2017) and therefore understand they’re being seen as leaders.

But who to look at and why? As mentioned above, government funded bodies are typically a good starting point, and in my case this resides with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), and their councils. (UKRI, 2019,A). So why is it important to look towards funders? In my opinion this literally shows what industry leaders are wanting to achieve in the immediate future. As Palmer and Schibeci argues; funders have a clear expectation of researchers to conduct science communication (2012), so therefore we are no longer just looking at science communication as separate to the traditional research, but they are becoming ever more interlinked.

For example, taking this approach into consideration, it is clear that citizen science is a focus for UKRI through their Exploration Grants (UKRI, 2019,B). This is of course just one of multiple funding calls from UKRI, but provides an excellent working example. Traditionally impact and answers from any funded research grants can take years to appear, and by then the next idea, concept or trend may have already started. I argue that by staying up to date with current funding calls allows us to understand what is being done now.

However, this is not a one size fits all, and science communicators must look elsewhere for answers. Palmer and Schibeci suggests funding body policies will not directly lead to changes within the sector, nor will it create change in research and communication practices (2012). There are many other factors to take into consideration.

Discovering these other factors can be a challenge. Horizon scanning is one approach that we can use to remove some uncertainty. The UK Government use this tool and describes its function as;

“systematically investigating evidence about future trends. Horizon scanning helps government to analyse whether it is adequately prepared for potential opportunities and threats. This helps ensure that policies are resilient to different future environments.” (2019)

If you look towards the funding landscape as an iterative cycle; always looking for the next area to develop, horizon scanning can act as a helpful tool. This can also be applied to the media aspect of science communication and future media. Watching developments in technology and social media can be a useful tool to try and see what methods and platforms might be the next big thing in science communication, for example the growth of YouTube as a science communication platform. (Nerlich, 2019).

It is impossible to predict the future, but science communicators are fortunate enough to have multiple tools to empower them to forecast changes and the ability to react to these. I believe as the research landscape develops, in turn, so will the practice of science communication. I am unsure if this makes our jobs and prediction of the future more uncertain, but I hope this will lead to a positive development in our ever expanding field.

Bibliography

B. Trench and M. Bucchi. (2010) Science communication, an emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication. 09(03) doi: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09030303

Nerlich, B (2019, 18 October). Science communication online: The influence of YouTube and the youtubing of influencers. [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2019/10/18/science-communication-online-the-influence-of-youtube-and-the-youtubing-of-influencers/

Palmer, S. E. and Schibeci, R. A. (2012) What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies?, Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), pp. 511–527. doi: 10.1177/0963662512455295.

Science and Technology Committee (2017) Science Communication and Engagement. Retrieved from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/162/16206.htm

UK Government (2019) Horizon Scanning Programme team. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/horizon-scanning-programme-team

UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) A, (2019) Our Councils. Retrieved from:

https://www.ukri.org/about-us/our-councils/

UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) B, (2019) Citizen Science Exploration Grant. Retrieved from: https://www.ukri.org/funding/funding-opportunities/citizen-science-exploration/