I once did part of a workshop on "Communicating University Research" for college and university PIOs and media relations people. The first thing I did was give a pop quiz. I asked three basic questions: (1) name a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes articles about science communication, (2) name a researcher who writes about communication issues in science and technology, and (3) describe a recent article you read about research in science communication or science journalism. The class failed — miserably.
With fellow NASW members Earle Holland and Dennis Meredith, I once did part of a workshop on "Communicating University Research" sponsored by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, for college and university PIOs and media relations people. These were 60 or so early-career (twenty- and thirty-somethings) young professionals, many more women than men (typical in the profession), and mostly trained in liberal arts or communications but now covering the science or medicine beat at their respective institutions.
As befit the collegiate environment, the first thing I did was give a pop quiz. I asked three basic questions: (1) name a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes articles about science communication, (2) name a researcher who writes about communication issues in science and technology, and (3) describe a recent article you read about research in science communication or science journalism.
The class failed — miserably. Fewer than five people could answer ANY of the questions correctly, and none could answer all.
I was expecting to make the point that there is a very robust — but routinely ignored — literature about the jobs we do as science journalists, PIOs, freelancers, and other science communicators that could offer useful insights into how our organizations behave, how and why people seek out science information, how policy about science gets shaped by media messages and public input, and what people know, think, and believe about science, technology, and medicine. I didn't expect to make the point so eloquently.
(NASW members can read the entire article — and the rest of the Fall 2008 ScienceWriters — by logging into the members area.)
