Dear list
I've been enjoying this discussion so much, and how timely as I've just finished my own quantitative evalulation of our media coverage for 1999.
After eight years of engagement with PUS at British Antarctic Survey I think we all realise that understanding is an amibitious (but worthy) term. Interested would be good. But while most of us in the science communication business are aware of the issues, there is a bit of a lag in that information getting to some science managers. For those managers who have signed up to the concept there is additional difficulty in understanding that what 'we' want to communicate to the public is not always what they want to hear - however, we do listen occasionally. We recently published an A-level Geography resource for teachers and students that was a direct response from hundreds of letters and emails from kids.
Nevertheless, we 'communicators' shouldn't lose sight of the problems faced by our scientist colleagues. Whilst the few who are good at engaging the public/media get much personal satisfaction from the experience, they are still under pressure to get on with their work and publish papers in scientific journals. Management recognition for PUS effort can be extremely patchy - if it's seen to impinge on 'getting the science' done you've had it dearie.
So Andy keep up the great work with evaluation - it's a great help to me. And Mark ... can you please try to feed through the need for greater accreditation of PUS effort for scientists.
Linda Capper
PS... I've never been to a football match and never read the sports pages or watch it on telly but somehow I've got the idea that people love Manchester United and it's a great team with a great manager..... how did that happen?!
Linda Capper MIPR
Press & Information Officer
British Antarctic Survey, High Cross
Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET
Tel: 01223 221448; fax 01223 302093
Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|