ASC2018 - 11-15 Nov, Sydney

by

The value of social media for scientists: what do students think?

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

Twitter is widely considered a useful and effective communication tool among scientists. I explored the perceptions of 472 research-active science students regarding the potential role that social media in general, and specifically Twitter, could play in scientists’ professional lives.

I initially asked students (pre-survey) whether they currently used Twitter and asked for their responses to statements including: ‘Social media plays an important role in the professional life of a scientist’, ‘Social media is a valid way to communicate about science with other scientists’ and ‘Having a professional presence on social media can help my science career’. A month after a class focused on the value of Twitter and other social media to scientists, I asked students to respond to the same statements (post-survey) and also established how many of them had begun using Twitter.

All results were similar across all years (2014 – 2018). Initially, most students used social media personally, but not professionally, and less than a third were Twitter users. Most students perceived social media to be a valid way of communicating about science with lay audiences; few believed this to be true for communicating among scientists.

At the time of the post-survey, half the class used social media both professionally and personally and roughly 80% answered that they were Twitter users. The proportion of students who believed that social media was a valid way to communicate about science with scientific audiences had also increased. Students were also more inclined to agree with the statement that social media plays an important role in the professional life of a scientist.

A one-hour session outlining the value of Twitter to scientists was sufficient to encourage many students to start using Twitter and appeared to contribute to more students seeing a role for social media in the professional life of a scientist.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

Presenter

Jen Martin, Educator and radio personality, The University of Melbourne

by

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

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

When we look around, science communication is everywhere. You see it in museums, in television documentaries, in newspapers, on the radio, in science magazines, social media and the growth in citizen science. But how do we know whether any given effort in communicating science among public audiences is effective? And by which aims and objectives are those efforts measured?

This session will feature research case studies exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions and provide insights to improve science communication practice and impact evaluation.

The session is structured into five 15-minute talks and will wrap-up with a 15-minute Q&A for delegates questions and comments.

The session will include the following talks:

Session Producer

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

Session Chair

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

by

Elevating science communication through social science

When: Wednesday 14th November, 11:55am – 1:25pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #W10

Effective communication and engagement is key to achieving impact from science. This session highlights how harnessing social science research can improve science communication. Three case studies from Australia’s lead science agency, CSIRO, will demonstrate how social scientists are collaborating with science communication practitioners to elevate science communication and engagement with target audiences. Strategies include formulating engaging key messages, identifying appropriate channels/platforms, and using language and tone to meet communication objectives.

Session Producer/Presenter

Dr Tsuey Cham, Communication & Stakeholder Manager, CSIRO GISERA

Melina Gillespie, Communication Advisor, CSIRO Energy

Session Producer/Chair

Helen Beringen, Communication Manager, CSIRO Land and Water

Presenters

Dr Nadine Marshall, Environmental Social Scientist, CSIRO Land & Water

Dr Andrea Walton, Social Scientist, CSIRO Land & Water

Dr Elisha Frederiks, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Land & Water

Amy Edwards, Communication Advisor, CSIRO Land & Water

by

A comparison of two techniques for visualising antibiotic dispensing over time: the run chart versus Nightingale’s rose diagram

When: Wednesday 14th November, 2:40pm – 3:40pm
Where: L2, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right
Hashtag: #W17

Background
Data visualisation is the broadly-applicable science of communicating information via graphical representations. The conventional technique for visualising drug dispensing over time is the run chart – a graph of data over time measured in a line. An alternative to the run chart is Nightingale’s rose diagram[1], which shows areas in a circle over time measured in a clockwise direction. No known studies have used Nightingale’s rose diagram to visualise drug dispensing temporally. Antibiotic use fluctuates with the seasons and, in modern society, is closely monitored over time because overuse enables infectious disease-causing bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance. In modern public health, it is important to visualise antibiotic use in a way that is understandable to health professionals, researchers, government officials, and the generally public. This study aimed to compare two techniques for visualising antibiotic dispensing over time: the run chart and Nightingale’s rose diagram.

Methods
Dispensing data were sourced from Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule Item Reports[2]. For each month in 2017, data were extracted on number of systemic antibiotic (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical 5 code J01[3]) prescriptions dispensed in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Antibiotic dispensing over time was visualised by producing run charts in Microsoft Excel 2013[4] and Nightingale’s rose diagrams in AnyChart[5], with stratification by drug class. These data visualisations were compared visually and with respect to elements ranked in order of decreasingly accurate perceptions of absolute quantity[6-8]: 1. position (common scale); 2. position (non-aligned scale); 3. length/direction/angle/slope; 4. area; 5. volume/density/curvature; 6. shading/colour saturation/colour hue.

Results
In the run charts and Nightingale rose diagrams, antibiotic dispensing increased from the lowest levels in January and February (the Australian summer) to peaks in August (the Australian winter). The investigator observed that Nightingale’s rose diagrams were eye catching and accentuated the seasonal component of the data. With regard to the accuracy of perceptions of absolute quantity, the run chart attained the highest score of 1 for position (common scale) whereas Nightingale’s rose diagrams scored lower: 3 for length and 4 for area.

Conclusions
When one is visualising antibiotic dispensing over time, choosing Nightingale’s rose diagram over the run chart gives accentuated seasonality but less accurate perception of absolute quantity. These two data visualisation techniques may complement one another. If one were to present these plots together or incorporate the run chart’s numeric scale into Nightingale’s rose diagram, then there could be improved communication of information on antibiotic use (or overuse) to health professionals, researchers, government officials, and the general public.

References
1. Magnello ME. Victorian statistical graphics and the iconography of Florence Nightingale’s polar area graph. British Society for the History of Mathematics Bulletin. 2012; 27: 13-37.

2. Australian Government Department of Human Services. Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule Item Reports. Available at: http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/pbs_item.jsp [Accessed 8 August 2018].

3. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index 2018. Available at: http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/ [Available at: 12 August 2018].

4. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA.

5. AnyChart, St. Augustine, FL, USA.

6. Cleveland WS and McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1984; 79(387): 531–554.

7. Cleveland WS and McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science. 1985; 229(4716): 828–833.

8. Shah P and Miyake A. The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005.

Session

Case studies: Visualising science

Presenter

Michael Leach, Adjunct Research Associate, School of Rural Health, Monash University

by

Unlocking curious minds: Promoting climate change knowledge and efficacy beliefs among students from lower decile schools

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

Currently, we know little if youth are aware of climate change, understand its scientific causes or consequences, and potential solutions. In addition, science teachers’ needs assessment is largely lacking in developing science communication efforts. Based on a collaboration with head of science teachers in five lower decile schools, short and simple animations were developed based on best science communication practises. In particular, social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1995, 2000) was applied, to focus not only on climate impacts but also to increase self- and collective efficacy beliefs of students that they can individually and collectively act to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The five short videos featured animations on (1) how do we know climate change is happening, (2) how do we determine the impacts of climate change locally, and (3) what solutions will best help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Further, two local climate scientists were featured in separate videos as they are considered the most trusted source of information for the public, aligning with deference to authority theory (e.g., Brossard & Nisbet, 2007; Brossard, 2013). These videos were developed as a resource to local science teachers to adapt in various classes. Based on pre-post survey of 150 high school students following exposure to the videos, we found that the intervention increased students’ knowledge about anthropogenic climate change, belief in scientific consensus, and in particular, their individual and collective efficacies to come together and act on climate change. The science teachers also mentioned using the videos in other classes. The intervention indicates the potential for a collaborative effort between science communication experts, climate scientists, and local science teachers to be able to engage and elevate students’ knowledge and efficacy beliefs about climate change. This research also found the dwindling resources for science teachers needs to be met such local interventions to help teachers better address current science issues. The success of the intervention indicates the effectiveness of localised campaigns in affecting change.

Session

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

Presenter

Jagadish Thaker, Lecturer at the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University

Co-Author
Daniel Rimmer

by

Case studies: Lessons from the experts

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatrette, Level 2 behind the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T9

We’ve all seen that news report, facebook post, heard a podcast, etc. that just doesn’t quite get the science right.  This is endemic throughout communicating science and needs to be addressed. So how do we combat the miscommunication of science?

This session shows you how to make a difference in how you accurately communicate science. Each of the speakers in this session will give you their unique ways to combat this vital issue in our community.

The session is structured into four 15-minute talks and will wrap-up with a 30-minute Q&A for delegates questions and comments.

The session will include the following talks:

Session Producer

 

Session Chair

 

by

The risky business of communication risk (or what to do when normal communications no longer work)

When: Thursday 15th November, 12:00pm – 4:45pm (including lunch)
Where: Powerhouse Museum, 500 Harris St, Ultimo
Room: L3, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right

In this workshop you will examine the theory behind risk communication, and learn how to apply it in practice. We will use case studies and shared learnings to develop risk communication frameworks for people’s own professional situations that you can then apply in your workplace.

Workshop presenter

Craig Cormick, Science Communicator and Writer

Purchase separately or free for conference+workshop delegates (RSVP during registration).

Register now!

**This is a public event. Register to save your seat!**

Share on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/242782939725080/

by

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

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

Science communication has evolved with the prevalence of new media, bringing opportunities for scientists and communicators to interact with their audiences in new ways. But what is the value of investing time, money and effort into these new and innovative ways of communicating science? What are the impacts and what works best?

This session will feature research exploring new media and social media and provide insights to improve science communication practice and impact evaluation.

The session is structured into five 15-minute talks and will wrap-up with a 15-minute Q&A for delegates questions and comments.

The session will include the following talks:

Session Producer, Session Chair

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

by

How should we communicate science on social media? A machine learning approach to science communication research.

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

There is concern that a crisis of trust may be looming between society and scientists, as evidenced by the display of considerable public distrust in important issues such as climate change and childhood vaccinations. This perceived erosion of public confidence in science is one of the impetuses behind the public engagement with science movement, whereby scientists are called upon to engage in dialogues with the public to help improve public trust in science and scientists. Thanks to their built-in architecture for participation, social media have been hailed as useful tools that scientists can use to engage directly with the public. Despite the growing interest in social media to communicate science, evidence for the effectiveness of social media in influencing public attitudes towards science is scant. This study addresses two overarching research questions: (1) does communicating with scientists on social media have any effects on public trust in science and scientists? and (2) what are the factors that affect audience engagement and trust in science?

More than 500,000 space science-related social media messages were collected. The main method used is machine learning, demonstrating the feasibility of automated methods in science communication research. Results indicate that communicating with space scientists on social media causes a boost in trust in science and scientists. Further, results also suggest that the factors associated with audience engagement (e.g., retweets, likes) and trust in science are very different: visual elements stimulate audience engagement, while similarity is the biggest determinant of trust. Authenticity is the only feature that impacts both engagement and trust. This suggests that science audiences like and trust messages that are personal, honest, and genuine. The world increasingly needs scientists to also be advocates of science. The findings of this study represent concrete evidence that could help guide social media science communication efforts.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

Presenter

Yi-Ling Hwong, Post-doctoral research associate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW

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

 

by

What’s next: Taking your sci com career to the next level

When: Tuesday 13th November, 4:00pm – 5:30pm
Where: L2, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right
Hashtag: #T15

So you’ve been in science communication for a while, and wondering what to do next. This session is a group brainstorm of career directions, opportunities and inspirations.

Where are the influential jobs? What are the big challenges developing for sci com? Should I go freelance? Can I make enough money from sci comm to have a secure future!?

Everyone’s answers will be different, but hopefully you will make connections and get inspiration to get you on the right path for you.

Session Producer, Workshop Facilitator

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

Attendees

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
Bobby Cerini, Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre
Broderick Matthews, A/g National Programs Manager, Questacon
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
Emma Saville, EPA Victoria
Errol Hunt, FLEET: ARC Centre of Excellence
Jane Ilsley, Econnect Communication
Jasmine Fellows, CSIRO
Jen Martin, Educator and radio personality, The University of Melbourne
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
Richard Chi, Sydney Observatory – MAAS
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
Tom Rayner, Griffith University
Taryn Laubenstein, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
Dr Tsuey Cham, Communication & Stakeholder Manager, CSIRO GISERA
Tyrone Anderson, ASPIRE – UNSW
Vanessa Fuchs, The Royal Botanic Garden Sydney

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