Science Communication in South Africa

Description

Why do we need to communicate science? Is science, with its highly specialised language and its arcane methods, too distant to be understood by the public? Is it really possible for citizens to participate meaningfully in scientific research projects and debate? Should scientists be mandated to engage with the public to facilitate better understanding of science? How can they best communicate their special knowledge to be intelligible? These and a plethora of related questions are being raised by researchers and politicians alike as they have become convinced that science and society need to draw nearer to one another. Once the persuasion took hold that science should open up to the public and these questions were raised, it became clear that coming up with satisfactory answers would be a complex challenge. The inaccessibility of scientific language and methods, due to ever increasing specialisation, is at the base of its very success. Thus, translating specialised knowledge to become understandable, interesting and relevant to various publics creates particular perils. This is exacerbated by the ongoing disruption of the public discourse through the digitisation of communication platforms. For example, the availability of medical knowledge on the internet and the immense opportunities to inform oneself about health risks via social media are undermined by the manipulable nature of this technology that does not allow its users to distinguish between credible content and misinformation. In countries around the world, scientists, policy-makers and the public have high hopes for science communication: that it may elevate its populations educationally, that it may raise the level of sound decision-making for people in their daily lives, and that it may contribute to innovation and economic well-being. This collection of current reflections gives an insight into the issues that have to be addressed by research to reach these noble goals, for South Africa and by South Africans in particular.

Informations

• Publié par: African Minds
• Date de parution: 07 janvier 2020
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781928502043
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Reflections on Current Issues

Edited by Peter Weingart, Marina Joubert & Bankole Falade

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

Reflections on Current Issues

Edîted by Peter Weîngart, Marîna Joubert & Bankoe Faade

AFRICAN MINDS

Pubîsed în 2019 by Arîcan Mînds 4 Ecceston Pace, Somerset West 7130, Cape Town, Sout Arîca îno@arîcanmînds.org.za www.arîcanmînds.org.za

Fundîng acknowedgement: hîs work îs based on te researc supported by te Sout Arîcan Researc Caîrs ïnîtîatîve o te Department o Scîence and Tecnoogy and Natîona Researc Foundatîon o Sout Arîca (grant number 93097). Any opînîon, Indîng and concusîon or recom- mendatîon expressed în tîs materîa îs tat o te autors and te NRF does not accept any îabîîty în tîs regard.

hîs work îs pubîsed under a Creatîve Commons Attrîbutîon 4.0 ïnternatîona îcense

ïSBN Paper 978-1-928502-03-6 ïSBN eBook 978-1-928502-04-3 ïSBN ePub 978-1-928502-05-0

Orders Arîcan Mînds 4 Ecceston Pace, Somerset West 7130, Cape Town, Sout Arîca îno@arîcanmînds.org.za www.arîcanmînds.org.za

For orders rom outsîde Sout Arîca: Arîcan Books Coectîve PO Box 721, Oxord OX1 9EN, UK orders@arîcanbookscoectîve.com www.arîcanbookscoectîve.com

Contents

1 2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ïntroductîonPeter Weingart, Marina Joubert & Bankole Falade 1 Wy scîence communîcatîon?Janice Limson 19 Puttîngresponsîberesearcandînnovatîonîntopractîceata oca eve în Sout ArîcaPenelope S. Hawort & Anne M. Dijkstra45 Deveopîngatargetedbeavîouracangecommunîcatîonstrategy or a înguîstîcay and cuturay dîverse communîty Konosoang Sobane & Wilfred Lunga 73

hecaengeocommunîcatîngscîenceefectîveyînIserîes managementDoug S. Butterwort

Scîenceandsocîamedîa:Opportunîtîes,beneItsandrîsks Sirona Patel

96

109

hequackeryvîrus:ApreîmînaryanaysîsopseudoscîentîIc eat messages on TwîtterGeorge Claassen 150 heampîIcatîonouncertaînty:heuseoscîenceîntesocîa medîa by te antî-vaccînatîon movementFrançois van Scalkwyk 170

Wyîmpactevauatîonmattersînscîencecommunîcatîon: Or, advancîng te scîence o scîence communîcatîon Eric Allen Jensen

About te edîtors and te autors

îîî

213

229

Acknowledgement

hîs book was made possîbe by and was pubîsed under te auspîces o te Sout Arîcan Researc Caîr în Scîence Communîcatîon osted by te Centre or Researc on Evauatîon, Scîence and Tecnoogy (CREST), Steenbosc Unîversîty. We tank te Department o Scîence and Tecnoogy (DST) and te Natîona Researc Foundatîon (NRF) or teîr generous support.

îv

Introduction 1 Peter Weingart, Marina Joubert & Bankole Falade

Why science communication?

To understand te surge o actîvîtîes nowadays termed ‘scîence communîcatîon one as to get a sense o te voume and speed o deveopment o scîence over te ast century, as we as îts pace în socîety. Scîence, weter measured în terms o scîentîsts or în terms o scîentîIc pubîcatîons, as grown exponentîay sînce te bîrt o modern scîence în te ate 17t century. Wîe tîs dynamîc growt went unnotîced or a wîe, startîng out rom just a ew aderents to te new ways o gaînîng knowedge, ît became a subject o systematîc reLectîon ony în te mîdde o te 20t century wen te US îstorîan o scîence and ater o bîbîometrîcs amousy noted tat 90% o a scîentîsts tat ad ever îved were aîve at present (Prîce, 1963). Even toug scîentîsts (and engîneers) ad aready contrîbuted consîderaby to economîc deveopment durîng te ate 19t century, teîr numbers and teîr împact on socîetîes reay began to matter poîtîcay and economîcay durîng and ater te Fîrst Word War. ït was not untî ater te Second Word War tat scîence poîcy became a separate Ied o poîcy-makîng, Irst în te US, and ten în Europe, Japan and Austraîa. Untî ten scîence was an actîvîty carrîed out în reatîve îsoatîon rom te rest o socîety. Scîentîsts communîcated among temseves, wîtîn teîr dîscîpî- nary communîtîes and în anguages tat became more and more

1

SCïENCE COMMUNïCATïON ïN SOUTH AFRïCA

opaque as teîr Ieds became ever more specîaîsed. Scîence was, în te words o Don K. Prîce,exceptionalîn te sense tat ît was te ony înstîtutîon tat receîved pubîc unds wîtout avîng to account or ît (Prîce, 1965). hîs exceptîonaîsm began to ade aready în te mîd-1950s wen arge tecnoogy projects – cîvîîan nucear power, aerospace and data processîng – îgîgted te economîc utîîty o scîence (and tecnoogy). he Irst attempts at împrovîng te ‘pubîc understandîng o scîence în te US were motîvated prîmarîy by concerns reated to te Cod War: an apparent ack o STEM students treatenîng te efort o te country to prevaî în te competîtîon or tecnoogîca eadersîp and te need to secure pubîc support or te space programme. hese two motîves o scîence poîcy ave become generaîsed beyond te orîgîna context, tey underîe scîence communîcatîon poîcîes în vîrtuay a countrîes tat ave suc poîcîes, and tey are present to tîs day to contrîbute to înnovatîon and to secure pubîc acceptance o pubîc expendîtures or scîence, as we as te împementatîon o new tecnoogîes. Pubîc acceptance o expendîtures or scîentîIc researc was partîcuary crîtîca. he ten domînant so-caed ‘înear mode o înnovatîon stîpuated tat a economîc înnovatîon emerged rom prîor basîc researc, tat te dîrectîon o suc researc was to be determîned by scîentîsts ony, and tat te outcome o researc coud not be predîcted (Bus, 1945). hîs consteatîon was at te eart o te exceptîonaîsm o scîence, and ît was supported by te poîtîca context în wîc te reedom o scîence was to symboîse te superîorîty o te West. he need to secure pubîc consent became more urgent as scîence budgets grew to poîtîcay vîsîbe dîmensîons, utîmatey reacîng 2–3% o GDP în te weatîer 1 countrîes. Consequenty, te genera pubîc, în te orm o te eectorate, ad to be addressed to trust te scîentîIc communîtys decîsîons and to egîtîmate R&D expendîtures. he genera pubîc ad been addressed by scîentîsts ong beore.

1C. ttps://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestîc-spendîng-on-r-d.tm

2

1 ïNTRODUCTïON

ïn act, at te începtîon o modern scîence, scîentîsts attempted to capture te înterest and ascînatîon o te arîstocracy on wîc tey depended or support. Durîng te second a o te 19t century te popuarîsatîon o scîence amost became a separate proessîon. Aexander von Humbodt, addressîng te educated bourgeoîsîe and te workîng cass în îs Kosmos ectures, turned out to be te înstîgator o te Irst ‘scîence centreavant la lettre, te Uranîa în Berîn. he spîrît o popuarîsatîon tat was very muc aso a spîrît o enîgtenment wîc coud trîve as ong as te scîence o te day was ‘accessîbe to te ay pubîc, at east în prîncîpe, a condîtîon tat eroded wît te încreasîng abstractness o concepts, anguage and subject matters în many Ieds eraded by quantum mecanîcs at te begînnîng o te 20t century (Bensaude-Vîncent, 2001). he advent o ‘pubîc understandîng o scîence was tus carac- terîsed by a mîx o motîves: economîc, poîtîca, egîtîmatîon and enîgtenment o te pubîc. Over te years many actors ave joîned în eforts to împrove te pubîcs understandîng o scîence, but to tîs day tere îs no consensus among scoars about îts goas, or about te crîterîa o success or aîure (ewensteîn, 2003: 1). ïn 1985, te Brîtîs Roya Socîety pubîsed îts so-caed Bodmer Reporturged te ‘Economîc and Socîa Researc wîc Councî (ESRC) and oter approprîate bodîes to devîse metods o monîtorîng attîtudes to scîence în te Unîted Kîngdom (Bodmer, 1985: 31). More tan tree decades sînce îts pubîca- tîon tere are stî no adequate metods în pace, nor are efectîve steps undertaken, to evauate te many actîvîtîes tat are carrîed out under te abe o scîence communîcatîon (Sort, 2013: 40). hîs state o afaîrs îs reLected în a îvey debate pubîsed în a number o scoary journas ounded sînce te ate 1970s (Science Communicationîn 1979;Public Understanding of Scienceîn 1992; Journal of Science Communication [JCOM]în 2002). he orîgîna concerns among scîentîsts ocused on te knowedge among te pubîc o basîc scîentîIc concepts, teorîes and metods. Surveys desîgned to gauge tat knowedge (Irst by te US Natîona Scîence Foundatîon) ound tat te pubîcs understandîng o

3

SCïENCE COMMUNïCATïON ïN SOUTH AFRïCA

scîence (PUS) – as deIned by tem – was extremey îmîted. ït was beîeved tat by îdentîyîng suc ‘deIcîts o scîentîIc ‘îteracy te respectîve educatîona programmes coud remedy tîs state and, as a resut, by împrovîng te pubîcs understandîng, tîs woud aso resut în generay posîtîve attîtudes toward scîence. he so-caed ‘deIcît-mode underyîng te PUS approac was subsequenty crîtîcîsed bot or îts sîmpîstîc assumptîons o înormatîon processîng, but aso or îts paternaîstîc outook on te reatîonsîp between scîence and te pubîc. As tîme went by, te academîc dîscussîon o te rîgt and efectîve ormat as moved rom te deIcît mode to te ‘contextua, te ‘ay expertîse and Inay te ‘pubîc partîcîpatîon modes (ewensteîn, 2003). he îterto atest deveopment în tîs evoutîon o scîence communîcatîon îs te concept o ‘pubîc engagement wît scîence and tecnoogy (PEST) wîc propagates ‘dîaogîca ormats between scîence and te pubîc, actîve partîcîpatîon o cîtîzens în scîence poîcy decîsîon-makîng and even în researc projects (Lagged as ‘cîtîzen scîence) (Smaman, 2018; Stîgoe et a., 2014). hus, te trajectory rom ‘deIcît to ‘dîaogue appears to be one o greater proxîmîty o scîence to te pubîc, o ‘încusîon î not o a democratîsed reatîonsîp. However, te reaîty on te ground ooks muc more modest, and te acuna between ît and te oty retorîc o scîence poîcy programmes and îdeaîstîc scîentîsts îs te ratîonae or a ‘scîence o scîence communîcatîon (NAS, 2017).

Some challenges to science communication

Scîence communîcatîon programmes ave become part o scîence poîcy or more tan tree decades în vîrtuay a deveoped and în some deveopîng countrîes, suc as Sout Arîca. Yet, în spîte o te consîderabe cost încurred, tere îs stî no serîous evauatîon o teîr efectîveness. Surveys o trust în scîence ave remaîned metodoogîcay weak and are rarey înked dîrecty to partîcuar communîcatîon programmes. hîs abstînence can be expaîned by at east two actors. Fîrst, tere are a mutîtude o dîferent

4

1 ïNTRODUCTïON

motîves tat drîve scîence communîcatîon programmes and tat do not aow or te deInîtîon o dîstînct crîterîa agaînst wîc to measure efects. Second are te vested înterests o te actors tat înîtîate te arger sare o te programmes or purposes o pubîc reatîons (Weîngart & Joubert, 2019). ïn partîcuar, unîversîtîes are a pertînent exampe sînce tey are organîsatîons tat compete or pubîc unds, students and, most împortanty, posîtîve genera attentîon tat îs expected to enance teîr egîtîmacy wît te pubîc and poîcy-makers. hus, teîr communîcatîon actîvîtîes tat used to be ocused on (and îmîted to) press reeases about new dîscoverîes în teîr researc aboratorîes ave more oten tan not deveoped înto pubîc reatîons type communîcatîon, reLected în a dramatîc growt o communîcatîon proessîonas at unîversîtîes. Consequenty, te ocus o researc înstîtutîons, unîversîtîes and îndîvîdua researcers îs încreasîngy sîtîng rom înormatîon/knowedge transer to reputatîon contro and îmage buîdîng (AEA, 2019; Scäer, 2017). he resutîng probem îs tat ‘înterested communîcatîon commands consîderaby ess trust (Hey, 2018; Peters, 2015; Weîngart & Guenter, 2016). Anoter caenge to scîence communîcatîon tat aso împacts te pubîcs trust îs te roe o socîa medîa. Socîa medîa patorms, above a Facebook and Twîtter, ave acîîtated dîrect communî- catîon wîtout te tradîtîona journaîstîc întermedîarîes and ave been greeted by unîversîtîes and scîentîsts aîke or teîr promîse to expand teîr reac and to capture pubîc attentîon at a dîmensîon tat was untînkabe beore teîr advent. he înîtîa entusîasm tat te patorms ave trîggered as waned somewat în vîew o te varîous scandas o data abuse or poîtîca and economîc purposes, as we as – peraps even more împortanty – because o te spread o ase înormatîon. he actîvîtîes o antî-vaccînatîon groups onîne ave demonstrated te downsîde o te tecno- ogy în an area o scîence communîcatîon wîc îs partîcuary vunerabe, namey eat communîcatîon, because ît afects te medîca we-beîng o îndîvîduas and entîre communîtîes (see Van Scakwyk în tîs voume). hus, te many posîtîve and negatîve împîcatîons o te înternet and socîa medîa or scîence

5