| |
Science communication conference |
Stempra newsletter
I haven’t been to a BA science communication conference for about five years, so this year’s July date seemed like a good opportunity to catch up and see what, if anything, has changed. It was certainly bigger and more expensive than it used to be, the price no doubt reflecting the smart venue in Savoy Place. Thankfully, with 11 sessions, 3 defined strands (Engaging to inspire and educate, Engaging to involve, and Engaging through the media and PR) and 9 parallel seminars, a report of the proceedings is available on the BA website. For a summary, I recommend reading pages 32 to 35 of this report. There is still a degree of navel gazing and efforts to define concepts of “dialogue” and “engagement”. Professor Kathy Sykes, in a lively scene-setting presentation on day 1, defined dialogue as “a form of deliberative participatory engagement where the outcomes are used to inform decision-making” and engagement as “a multi-dimensional approach to two-way communication with the public”. So some progress, but having defined them, how do we make them work and how do we evaluate? These questions remain. Kathy also defined a number of ‘silos’ in which engagement activity currently takes place. We need the model to change from isolated silos to a 3D network. I think that one of her silos was PR – but it took two hours on day one before science PR was even mentioned, and then only for media relations. Notwithstanding Kathy’s silos, one frustration is the perception that science communications is simply the province of individual scientists who would do more if they could count on fewer disincentives and more appreciation. The current infrastructure, including science communications programmes run by scientific societies, ie Stempra members, is only rarely acknowledged. I was shocked to hear one panel member at the end of session 4 say that she was reluctant to engage with the media because “one misrepresented quote could destroy our careers”. An argument for doing it better, not abandoning it altogether. I firmly believe that we have to accept the media as they are – we are not going to change them - and work with them to make the best of opportunities. On the whole day 2 was more positive and practical in tone, and therefore potentially of more interest to Stempra members. I was asked to write about the PR and New Media sessions for this newsletter. At times the choice of seminars was bewildering, and one of the seminars I wanted to attend was cancelled. But I did manage to go to a couple of new media and PR seminars which provided food for thought. At “Adventures in new media” we heard from Grace Baynes, Head of Marketing and Public Relations, BioMed Central, Jimmy Leach, Head of Content Development, Guardian Professional, and Dr Chris Smith, of the Naked Scientists. Each spoke interestingly about their own areas, ie open access publishing, expanding digital media and podcasting. These areas clearly have an impact on science communications, but we struggled to understand mechanisms we could use and how to evaluate outcomes. There should be an audit of the range of new media, the key players in new media, and how we can work with them to engage the public. The session “The future of broadcast and new media communications” chaired by Juliet Upton, was in turn technical and theoretical, but offered few practical ideas for science communicators. David Harrison, Ofcom, spoke about how the broadcast market is changing, the technology driving these changes and the impact on the consumer. Prof Jonathan Drori, of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, looked at interactivity and creating compelling new media experiences. We concluded that few really understood the new technology well enough to fund such activity, and that we need to connect the virtual worlds to the real world. Barbara Davies |
|