Those of us with long memories (and of advanced years) can remember back
to when PUS/sci com was formalised/(re)invented by the Bodmer Report
(1985).
One of the aims at that time was to break down the barriers between what
scientists did/found out and the public (however defined) - ie. to
attempt to build a bridge between CP Snow's two cultures - the science
communicators (whoever they are) were urged/encouraged to spread the
word.
At that time it was postulated by some that PUS/SciComm would develop
its own academic sub discipline and the risk was that a new 'two
cultures' divide would develop between the academic researchers and the
practitioners. That risk still appears to be present.
There are some disciplines (including psychology, who I work for) that
have a strong academic/research base and an equally strong
applied/practitioner element (eg. clinical, educational, forensic and
occupational). The trick, if that's the right word, is to understand,
respect and trust the roles of both sides of this potential divide. The
practitioners build their practice on the research/science base and the
researchers use practice to examine new questions/test hypotheses/test
outcomes. But, of course, psychology has been going for 100+ years
whereas our area is somewhat younger.
A problem we might have is that for the practitioner much of our work is
grounded in PR and marketing and the research base underpinning those
disciplines has often emerged from psychology - early work on effective
communications, perception and persuasion. It seems to me that inputs
into practice from academics/researchers in those fields would enhance
all our activities and I, for one, look forward to whatever emerges from
the forthcoming 'academic' conference that could inform what I have to
do on a day to day basis.
Apologies that this ramble went on rather longer than I was
expecting....
Stephen White
British Psychological Society
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrea Grant
Sent: 11 January 2007 03:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] problematising science communication
Great! Dig out the swords. What a wonderful exchange of words and how
revealing. You know you've hit on a good topic when you get this sort of
reaction. To me, this is healthy. I hope that it sparks a few interests
in getting more of this critical engagement - all in the interests of
learning about the boundaries of language. At best we know it doesn't
happen in isolation - your words, my meaning - we do it everyday!
Practitioners and theorists - is this a call to arms - something to the
tune of "my understanding is better than yours"?
Why exactly do we try to make the science of communication, sorry
science communication, simplistic? Perhaps we should be spending more
time challenging - "but what do you mean?"
Happy days,
Andrea
PS: To list administrators, would it be possible to have a html link
over the contents at the beginning of the message so readers can go
straight to the message of interest?
Andrea Grant
PhD Candidate
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 678
Wagga Wagga NSW 2678
[log in to unmask]
Ph: (02) 6933 4329
Mobile: 0427 456 847
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send
an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including
list archive, can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
**********************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Scanned for viruses and spam by emailsystems
If you believe this email is spam, please forward via email to
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Psychological Society
This email is intended for the addressee only. It may contain confidential information: disclosure of or action in reliance upon this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by return email and delete the message.
Any views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Society, which accepts no liability for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of this information unless confirmed in writing by a Society Manager.
We accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by viruses: you are advised to conduct your own checks on any attachments. When emailing us, be aware that email is not a 100 percent secure medium.
The British Psychological Society is a registered English charity - Charity Registration Number : 229642 - VAT Registration Number : 240 3937 76
www.bps.org.uk
**************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
**********************************************************************
|