Un article recent a The Conversation titulat What does research say about how to effectively communicate about science esmenta la feina d’un grup de treball de les UK National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, per fer recomanacions sobre com comunicar la ciència de forma efectiva.
El resum del document generat, titulat Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda, és
Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations.
Comunicar ciència és complex, i no hi ha gaire educació formal en aquest sentit, encara que hi ha exemples propers de bona formació (a nivell de màster, per exemple)
Because of this complexity, the practice of science communication (and there are many great practitioners) is currently more of an art than a science. Good communicators – whether reporters, bloggers, scientists or people active on social media and platforms like YouTube – typically learn from others, or through professional training, and often through trial and error. Unfortunately, the social sciences haven’t provided science communicators with concrete, evidence-based guidance on how to communicate more effectively.
Aquestes són algunes de les recomanacions. La tercera està relacionada amb la humiltat del científic. I la segona, saber què n’espera el públic que es té a davant o a qui es dirigeix la comunicació.
- Use a systems approach to guide science communication. In other words, recognize that science communication is part of a larger network of information and influences that affect what people and organizations think and do.
- Assess the effectiveness of science communication. Yes, researchers try, but often we still engage in communication first and evaluate later. Better to design the best approach to communication based on empirical insights about both audiences and contexts. Very often, the technical risk that scientists think must be communicated have nothing to do with the hopes or concerns public audiences have.
- Get better at meaningful engagement between scientists and others to enable that “honest, bidirectional dialogue” about the promises and pitfalls of science that our committee chair Alan Leshner and others have called for.
- Consider social media’s impact – positive and negative.
- Work toward better understanding when and how to communicate science around issues that are contentious, or potentially so.
L’article acaba parlant de la “post-veritat”, que ara està de moda (i ). Està clar que no n’hi ha pas prou en fer-ho bé, cal farcir la comunicació amb valors, cal lluitar perquè la gent interioritzi l’evidència. No serà pas fàcil, ho veiem cada dia.
This will not be easy. But the alternative – slipping further into a post-truth world where disdain for evidence creates risks that could be avoided – gives us little option but to dig deeper into the science of science communication, so that science and evidence are more effectively incorporated into the decisions people make.