Background
The relationship between science and society is changing, with the boundaries between them gradually blurring. This shift offers opportunities for collaboration but also leads to more debate and controversy. In the public arena, judgments about scientific research are increasingly common. Scientists are increasingly asked to communicate openly about their work, knowledge, and views. Many often do so out of a passion for their profession and a desire to engage with a wider audience. Others are willing to engage, but do not know how. Still others shy away from it or are disappointed in the interaction with the public or in reactions from colleagues.
Moreover, Dutch universities often do not consider science communication an integral part of an academic's duties, and it is rarely factored into assessments of scientific work. There is also a lack of systematic attention to training and the exchange of knowledge and expertise in science communication. In short, it is not yet sufficiently recognised and appreciated.
Our Research
The national Recognition and Rewards initiative recognises this issue and advocates for acknowledging science communication and public engagement as vital aspects of scientific work. It encourages open science and a shift towards a more holistic approach, focusing not just on tools and methods (hardware) but also on frameworks, values, and assumptions (software), and embedding, organisation, and policy (orgware). However, the importance of science communication for scientists is not well understood. What do they gain from it in terms of personal and professional development? How is it reflected in their work? And most importantly, what do they need to communicate meaningfully about their work, in terms of recognition, appreciation, support, and training?
This is precisely what we investigated: how to enhance the practice of science communication at Dutch universities. We spoke with scientists across the country who share their work, learning from their experiences to better understand what shapes science communication and what conditions are necessary - in terms of culture, structure, and practice - to foster and strengthen it at Dutch universities.
Results and Core Recommendations
Many scientists, from PhD students to renowned professors across all disciplines, wish to engage in science communication but find that their work environment does not adequately support them. Science communication is not considered a task for most academics, which means that the necessary time, resources, and support are lacking. Consequently, efforts in this area are not adequately recognised and appreciated.
The study's findings led to four main recommendations for academic institutions:
- Align science communication with open science policy by integrating reflection on science communication into the transition towards a more open science system and organising dialogue among scientists, communication experts, and societal stakeholders.
- Recognise science communication as a core academic duty, alongside research, teaching, and leadership, in career profiles.
- Incorporate science communication throughout the scientific process, reserving a portion of research budgets for it and emphasising the importance of well-conceived science communication plans in research funding applications.
- Treat science communication as a profession requiring specific expertise, providing training for researchers to excel in it, facilitating collaboration between scientists and communication staff, and preserving and sharing gained experiential knowledge.