ASC2018 - 11-15 Nov, Sydney

by

The Art and Science of Collaboration – Three Case Studies on Finding Innovative Partnerships for Science Communication

When: Tuesday 13th November, 9:15am – 11:15am
Where: Theatrette, Level 2 behind the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T3

You have a message and you know who you want to reach, but you have little to no budget or resources. Partnerships are often the best way to maximise your science communication efforts, but how do I make it happen?

From the world’s largest museum to the smallest of conservation non-profits, organizations big and small face this very same problem. Micaela Jemison will present three case studies from her time at the Smithsonian Institution and Bat Conservation International (USA) to shed light on the process of finding the right partners and the potential benefits and pitfalls of these collaborations.

The case studies span a range of corporate, government/non-profit and media partners, as well as individual collaborators you may not expect. The result is an annual North American bat conservation campaign reaching more than 24 million people, integration of conservation science messages into one of the world’s most popular online games for kids, and a virtual reality experience bringing a “Batnado” to the rest of the world.

Session

Case studies: Cultural Institutions and Festivals

Presenter

Micaela Jemison, Science Communicator, Smithsonian Institution

by

Comparing science communication models with a long-term participatory case study: The Climate Champion Program

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

Over the last 20 years, scholars and policymakers have called for science communication to move beyond linear engagement to participatory engagement, especially with publically contested science. However, there has been little scholarly reflection on long-term participatory science communication practice. My study compared the theorised science communication models with a seven-year case study: the Australian Climate Champion Program, where scientists and farmers jointly addressed the problem of climate risk. I investigated scientists and farmers’ objectives for participating, the nature of their interactions, and the relationships between them. I analysed how they valued different sources of knowledge and acknowledged risk. Respectful, open and trusting relationships developed between most of the farmers and scientists participating in the program resulting in upstream engagement and co-learning. This case study demonstrates that a long-term participatory program can enhance co-existing linear forms of communication (deficit and dialogue) to help achieve participatory outcomes.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Jennifer Metcalfe, Director, Econnect Communication

 

by

Designing methodologies with impact: A critical view on research

When: Tuesday, 13th November 9:15-11:15am
Where: L2, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right
Hashtag: #T5

Different approaches and processes can be implemented as part of a research project – but the best approach is the one that will get you the most accurate assessment! Even using the right approach does not guarantee valid findings – It has to be the right question!
This workshop will address best practice approaches to designing research programs that combine scientific rigour with practical efficiency. We will look at the philosophy underpinning different approaches and how and when different techniques should be used. We will conclude with a discussion on how published research should be evaluated.

Presenter

Clifford Lewis, Lecturer, Charles Sturt University

by

I’ll see it when I believe it: motivated numeracy in Australians’ perceptions of climate change risk

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

People don’t form attitudes about Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) risks just by empirically considering the likelihood of harm, the consequences of failing to act, and the costs and benefits of mitigation. If that was the case, there should be little disagreement about these quantifiable outputs of scientific research. However, when people consider controversial topics of decision-relevant science like ACC they often defer to their political beliefs, rather than using their cognitive abilities alone, leading to polarised groups. Counterintuitively, Kahan et al. (2017) found that more numerate people, who have the cognitive ability to interpret scientific data, were more polarised than others about the effectiveness of gun control laws on crime in the United States of America.

In our conceptual replication of this important study we investigated whether the motivated numeracy effect found in Kahan et al. (2017) also applies to people when assessing ACC risks. This randomised controlled experiment (N = 504) of Australian adults, extends the motivated reasoning thesis by finding evidence that some people who consider topics of ACC risk use motivated numeracy to rationalise their interpretations of scientific data in line with their beliefs.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Matt Nurse, Masters degree candidate, CPAS, Australian National University

Co-Author
Will Grant

by

Public Perceptions of Science and Opportunities for Informal Learning

When: Tuesday 13th November, 9:15am – 11:15am
Where: Theatrette, Level 2 behind the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T3

Alice E Williamson1, Chiara O’Reilly2, Tom Gordon3, Chiara Neto1

1School of Chemistry and Sydney Nano Institute, The University of Sydney
2Museum and Heritage Studies Program, The University of Sydney
3School of Physics, The University of Sydney alice.williamson@sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Science education is frequently singled out as a priority goal for Australia (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). To date, much of the focus has been on formal education – expanding capacity and strengths in schools and higher education to ensure that Australia is prepared for the future of employment and research (Tytler, 2009).

In recent years, science festivals and special public events focused on science have rapidly grown around the world (Bultitude, McDonald, and Custead, 2011). These events engage diverse audiences and seek to make science accessible (Council et al., 2009). They can play an important role in breaking down traditional resistance to topics by opening up discussions and expanding community awareness and supporting lifelong learning (McCallie, et al., n.d.)

This study seeks to explore the role of informal learning environments for science in Australia. Through the participation in, and surveying of science festivals and one-off science programming outside of traditional learning environments, we seek to better understand the ways that these events succeed or fail in engaging the community with science. By examining why people attend and what they gain we aim to explore the role that these events can play in shaping and developing contemporary attitudes to science.

In this paper we will share insights from the pilot stages of our project, findings from our surveys at three informal events and our future goals.

Session

Case studies: Cultural Institutions and Festivals

Presenter

Dr Alice Williamson, Lecturer in Chemical Education and Outreach, The University of Sydney

by

Communicating the True Nature of Science: A MAAS Collection Set

When: Tuesday 13th November, 9:15am – 11:15am
Where: Theatrette, Level 2 behind the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T3

Those who work in science research and communication understand that the scientific process is rarely linear: the road from hypothesis to discovery often involves setbacks, false leads, and diversions along the way; and new knowledge more often comes in the form of incremental progress than in major breakthroughs. We also understand the value of ‘blue skies’ research, and that the applications of this research may sometimes be indirect, or not emerge until decades later.

These are difficult concepts to convey, however, and while science outreach events like the Sydney Science Festival have helped to increase the public’s engagement with science (SSF reports 2016, 2017), recent research has also shown that these events may be reinforcing common misconceptions about scientific process, misleading the public’s perception of science as absolute and certain, instead of the tentative and evolving endeavour that it actually is (Kingsley et al., 2017). Media reporting too tends to over-simplify the process for the sake of headlines and storytelling (see e.g. Sumner et al. 2014), both of which suggest that additional approaches to science communication are required if we wish to convey these ideas.

The MAAS collection contains an estimated 500,000 objects, including a strong representation of science, technology and engineering artefacts, many of them related to Australian inventions and research (see MAAS Online Collection & MAAS Collection Development Plan, 2015). These objects provide a physical manifestation, in the form of familiar, everyday objects, of the long-term benefits of pure research in all of our lives, and demonstrate how research in fields as obscure as astronomy and quantum physics has practical implications in areas ranging from medicine to modern technology. In this talk I will present a set of scientific objects, drawn from the MAAS collection, which can help communicate these ideas, and the potential for developing this set into an online resource or a full exhibition.

Session

Case studies: Cultural Institutions and Festivals

Presenter

Sarah Reeves, Assistant Curator, Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences

by

Speed mentoring: short shots of career tips

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: L3, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right
Hashtag: #T11

Meet senior science communicators from all parts of the industry and find out their tips for success.

Mentors include Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, journalists from ABC, Fairfax and Nature, people from large organisations like Questacon and Universities, successful freelancers, senior ASC figures and more.

In small groups of similar interests you’ll spend ten minutes with a few mentors, getting their thoughts and asking some questions.

Could be the inspiration for your future career!

** Spaces strictly limited, RSVP for this session during registration. **

** All attending this session will be listed on this session page as they register to attend. **

Session Producer, Workshop facilitator, Presenter

Dr Phil Dooley, Galactic Commander, Phil Up On Science and ASC national vice-president

Mentors

Karl Kruszelnicki (Broadcaster and author) was given this good advice early in his media career: “Avoid opinions, stick to the facts”. Sometimes, you’re lucky.

Broderick Matthews (Acting National Programs Manager, Questacon) began his sci comm journey playing security guard Max Power in a CSI-style murder mystery. Since then he’s travelled from Broome to Bourke with Questacon, exploring the science behind bagpipes, the technology in game controllers, the engineering in play dough and the maths of catapulting cream pies.

Craig Cormick (ASC National President) has been a science communicator for over 25 years, working inside government agencies like Questacon and the CSIRO, as well as outside and around them, and now runs his own company – specialising in risk communication and community engagement.

Stephen Pincock (Nature) was a science journalist at Reuters, The Scientist and the Financial Times before writing popular science books and working as a science book publisher. He now leads a global editorial operation that includes Nature’s careers and supplements journalists and a team that helps institutions tell their science stories on the world stage.

Dr Bobby Cerini (Deputy Director and General Manager, Science and Learning A/g, Questacon) is currently the acting Deputy Director and General Manager of Science and Learning at Questacon. She works to ensure that science learning and engagement outcomes throughout Australia are met through the programs and exhibits run by Questacon.

Penny Palmer (Catalyst, ABC) As an ex-BBC now ABC science television programme maker, the secret to Dr Penny Palmer’s success is her curiosity and desire to understand how the world ticks – she studied parasitic Crustacea living inside starfish for her PhD. That’s a keen sense of curiosity.

Genelle Weule (ABC Science) started out with a health sciences degree. Then she became a journalist and embraced the internet when it was still spelt with a capital “I”. Today she is a senior science reporter, editor and digital producer at ABC Science covering everything from astronomy to zoology.

Jenni Metcalfe (Director, Econnect Communication) has been a science communicator for almost 30 years because she couldn’t decide what to be when she grew up: scientist or journalist. She still can’t decide and she still hasn’t grown up, but she loves bringing science to life through words, images and good old fashioned conversation.

James Hutson (Explanation designer, Explanovision) is a writer, illustrator & animator who creates clear & engaging explanations of complex information for non-experts and has been involved in the visual communication of science for over 20 years.

Lisa Bailey (Exhibition Manager, MOD & ASC National Vice-President) has worked in cultural institutions in the UK and Australia.  At the Royal Institution of Australia she helped design hundreds of science engagement events for communities across Australia, including producing the SCINEMA International Science Film Festival.  She’s now at MOD. at UniSA, designing exhibitions for Australia’s leading future-focused museum, provoking new ideas at the intersection of science, art and innovation.

Lizzie Crouch (Senior Coordinator of Engagement, SensiLab, Monash University) still finds it incredibly difficult to define what she does, having worked as documentary maker, journalist and presenter, art season producer and public engagement consultant (among others things!). But she’s committed to interdisciplinary approaches that create inspiring, engaging opportunities for new conversations around scientific content!

Marcus Strom (Media Advisor, University of Sydney) has a science degree but accidentally became a journalist while living in London last century. Recently was science reporter for Sydney Morning Herald.

Marina Hurley (Director, Writing Clear Science) In the distant past, Marina did a PhD on Stinging Trees. She now specialises in teaching how to write clearly, concisely and efficiently – and plays flamenco percussion on her days off.

Phil Dooley (Phil Up On Science and ASC National Vice-President) As a freelancer and in research institutions Phil has run physics workshops for thousands of high schoolers, written for publishers such as Nature and Cosmos, and told bad science jokes in pubs.

Toss Gascoigne (Visiting Fellow, ANU) walked into a job with CSIRO knowing nothing, but ended up running 1700 communication training workshops for scientists, inventing ‘Science meets Parliament’, running a national advocacy body for science and helping establish Australian Science Communicators.

Jen Martin (Senior Lecturer in Science Communication, University of Melbourne) used to study the sex lives of possums. A decade ago, she founded the scicomm teaching program at UniMelb. She’s been talking science on 3RRR radio for the last 12 years, writes a popular science blog and also loves writing about science for kids in Double Helix magazine.

Attendees

Andy Stapleton, CEO and Founder of verbalize.science
Anna Attard, Research Assistant and Masters Student, University of New South Wales
Anne-Sophie Dielen, The Australian National University
Dr Astha Singh, Vice President | ASC NSW, ASC
Caleb McElrea, University of Melbourne
Catharina Vendl, University of New South Wales
Dr Catherine Dorey, Consultant, Fish & Fisheries | Science Communication | Campaign Strategy
Catherine Healy, Science Communication Advisor, Environment Protection Authority Victoria
Catherine Somerville, Doherty Institute
Clare Watson, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
Emma Saville, EPA Victoria
Errol Hunt, FLEET: ARC Centre of Excellence
Jackie Randles, Manager Inspiring Australia NSW, Inspiring Australia
Jane Ilsley, Econnect Communication
Jessica Heinemann, Centre for Biopharmaceutical Innovation – UQ
Jun-Ting Yeung, University of Melbourne
Kimberly Cullen, Managing Director, Crafting Astronomy Communication
Laura McCaughey, UTS
Lee Byrne, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre
Matt Nurse, Masters degree candidate, CPAS, Australian National University
Meagan Vella, NPWS
Melina Gillespie, Communication Advisor, CSIRO Energy
Micaela Jemison, Science Communicator, Smithsonian Institution
Michael Helman, Communicatrium
Michelle Neil, Australian Citizen Science Association
Michelle Riedlinger, Associate Professor, University of Fraser Valley, Canada
Naomi Koh Belic, University of Technology Sydney
Nicole Fetchet, Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre
Rachel Rayner, Science Communicator, Australian Volunteers Program
Rebecca Blackburn
Ruth Redfern, CRDC
Sally Grosvenor, CDPC, University of Sydney
Sarah Buchan, The Mullion Group
Sheryn Pitman, Programme Manager Inspiring South Australia, South Australian Museum
Susan Rauch, Lecturer, professional writing (science and technology), Massey University, School of English and Media Studies
Tyrone Anderson, ASPIRE – UNSW

by

Mapping the science writing and communication landscape in Canada using new media and traditional survey research tools

When: Tuesday 13th November, 4:00pm – 5:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T12

The social media landscape presents new challenges for science communication that have not yet been fully understood. This Canadian government-funded project, conducted by researchers in partnership with ASC’s sister organizations in Canada (the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada, SWCC, and the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec, ACS), aimed to identify who is currently communicating about science in Canada and how they are doing it. Using emerging new media research tools (Altmetrics and Netlytics) and commonly-used hashtags (i.e. #scicomm; #commsci, and #sciart) we identified 256 dedicated social media science communicators (197 Twitter and 59 Instagram) located in Canada. We surveyed these social media communicators about their communication practices and compared their survey responses to survey responses gathered from association members (254 SWCC members and 309 ACS members). Findings show that, compared to association members, the social media communicators we identified through new media mapping were younger (26-36 years of age), paid less (or not at all) for their science communication activities, and had been communicating science for fewer years (2-5 years compared to 10 years or more). More members of the social media group had a science background (rather than communication, journalism or education background). Fewer of the social media communicators were members of related professional associations, however, more were members of informal science writing/communication networks. The social media communicators used a greater diversity of media tools to communicate when compared to association members. We will discuss how the findings from this research project are being used to inform professional member association policies, training and outreach activities to improve the quality of public engagement with science in Canada.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

Presenter

Dr Michelle Riedlinger, Associate Professor, University of Fraser Valley, Canada

Co-Author
Germana Barata
Alexandre Schiele

by

A sea of deficit: The science communication landscape in Australia

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

Science communication has been predicated on the deficit model —top-down, one-way communication from scientists to public audiences seen as “… empty vessels – as minds in deficit that need scientific information in order to be replete” [1]. This model has been discredited for 30 years, with research showing that more scientific information does not lead to the desired objectives of increased scientific literacy or public acceptance or agreement with science [2, 3]. And so a new mood for dialogue was identified in the U.K. House of Lords 2000 report [4], which consequently led to the UK’s Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) closing itself down stating: “We have reached the conclusion that the top-down approach which COPUS currently exemplifies is no longer appropriate to the wider agenda that the science communication community is now addressing” [5].

Despite the above, our research suggests that the deficit model not only persists in Australia — it prevails. This study examines the science communication landscape in Australia, specifically during National Science Week in August 2018. Approximately 1300 activity organisers across Australia were asked to complete a short online activity profile survey. Based on the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLO) framework [6] and the CAISE Informal Science Education project framework [7], the survey contained questions about individual activity objectives, style and format. A total of 305 individual activity profiles were collected and categorised using the CAISE project framework.

The results show that across Australia, 71% of National Science Week activities classified as deficit model, while only 3% classified as dialogue or engagement model. This result is higher than the almost 60% of 411 activities categorised as deficit model in the Inspiring Australia audit in 2012 [8]. Based on the research discrediting this model, we argue that the prevalence of the deficit model in Australia may be impacting the effectiveness of science communication efforts in achieving desired objectives.

References
1. Gregory, J. and S. Miller, Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. 1998, New York: Plenum.
2. Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, and G.P. Thomas, The public understanding of science. Nature, 1989. 340(6228): p. 11-14.
3. Thomas, G. and J. Durant, Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific literacy papers, 1987. 1: p. 1-14.
4. House of Lords, Science and Society. 2000, House of Lords: London.
5. Copus, Statement on Copus by the British Assiciation, the Royal Institution and the Royal Society. 2002, The Royal Society: London.
6. Hooper-Greenhill, E., et al., Measuring the Outcomes and Impact of Learning in Museums, archives and Libraries. 2003, University of Leicester: Research centre for Museum and Galleries.
7. McCallie, E., et al., Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. 2009, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE): Washington, D.C.
8. Metcalfe, J., K. Alford, and J. Shore, National audit of Australian science engagement activities. 2012, Inspiring Australia: Canberra, Australia.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Isabelle Kingsley, PhD candidate, Science Communication, University of New South Wales

Co-Author
Dr Carol Oliver, Senior Research Fellow, University of New South Wales

Australian Science Communicators

About ASC.

@auscicomm

ASC on Facebook

Questions? Please contact Kali on asc2018@asc.asn.au.

Acknowledgements

© 2018 Australian Science Communicators

Editor Login.

SPONSORED BY

SUPPORTED BY

TRADE EXHIBITORS