Do be aware that you’re asking room full of (primarily) science graduates working in scicomms whether they think the route they took was a good idea. I suspect we’re seeing a (cough) modicum of sample bias here!
There certainly are arts grads working in the sector. An old friend of mine is a very busy writer of gallery copy and AV scripts, working primarily for science and technology museums - her degree was in Norse literature, then she worked as a video game journalist. That there are relatively few non-STEM grads in the sector may reflect nothing more than the biases of those (primarily scientists) who allocate funding and appoint staff.
So in practice: I suspect yes, it is a good idea for the individual student to study science before moving into science communication, since that’s the route the sector expects. But increasingly I think this is a bad idea for the STEM community, as it perpetuates the idea that to convey science ideas you need to be a scientist. One of the things I think science communication gets wrong, as a sector, is that it thinks the science is the hard part. In truth, many of the ideas we’re attempting to move around are subtle rather than complex, and it’s the communication aspects - identifying, fostering, and empowering audiences, understanding their needs, and presenting ideas and information in a manner that’s compelling and actionable for those audiences - which are the truly challenging parts of the process.
Scientists are typically highly trained as undergrads, but not often exposed to much nuance around how science works or context around the history and philosophy of science; what writing they do will be in a strangled and broadly unreadable received style; and they’ve little or no education in thinking about audiences or performance, facilitation or editorial skills, let alone graphic design or media production or web technologies.
At the Sci Comms Conference last year, in a session about developments in scicomms over the last decade or so, I suggested that over that period the technologists have kicked our arses. We’ve issued myriad reports about gender equality and the demise of science practicals, meanwhile the technologists have built TED, Maker Faire, Minecraft and Raspberry Pi. They’re operating on a vastly larger scale to us, and if you look at those projects you’ll find … well, a degree of luck, sure, but also more than a scattering of journalists and enthusiastic media thinkers amongst the engineers and technologists.
My advice would be to look for broad-based science degrees, particularly ones which offer significant history and philosophy of science or science communication modules. Also, think hard about extra-curricular activities, and what avenues to pursue alongside a degree. Which universities have good student newspapers or radio? Which have strong theatre or comedy groups? What about photography and film? STEM outreach? Those experiences will be at least as valuable as thermodynamics lectures once you’re working in science communication.
…but then, I would say that, as that’s what I did (broad "physics + stuff” degree, including history and philosophy of science; lots of outreach work; terrible stand-up and sketch comedy which in retrospect was mortifying but at least honed my writing). Back to sample bias.
Two last thoughts:
Firstly, don’t worry too much. This is still a developing sector, and many of the jobs and technologies that will be central to how we do it in 2025 haven’t been invented yet. For an example, look no further than last night’s Apple announcement. No, not the not-really-a-watch watch: ResearchKit is interesting, and the skills set needed to utilise it is rare across the STEM engagement sector. Personally, if I was doing it all again I suspect I’d invest much more time into design, computer interaction study, and web/mobile development.
Secondly: Science communication is notoriously badly-paid. Even if that’s not a concern now, it may become so later. More traditional courses will offer a wider range of options.
Jonathan.
> On 9 Mar 2015, at 00:39, Liz Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I am a lurking teacher so hope I am doing this bit right! I have a year12 student who is adamant she wants to go into scicomm and who has a strong portfolio already. She is starting to look at UCAS applications but isn't sure whether to go for a more scicomm based degree like Science in Society at UCL or whether to go for a more specific degree and specialise later. her problem is she is so enthusiastic she wants to do it all!.
--
Jonathan Sanderson
"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" (Pascal)
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday)
• set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages)
• signoff psci-com (to leave the list)
• Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask]
Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************
|