Hello again everyone (with the usual apologies for cross-posting, and another apology for the long email)
You might remember that back in May I sent round a request for you to take part in a survey that had come out of the Science For All report, looking at training for Science Communicators.
Firstly, many thanks to the 98 (!) of you who answered our questions. This surpassed all my expectations and shows that there is a real interest in and appetite for these sorts of dicussions.
Secondly, I promised to make the results available for people to look at, and you can see them here http://bit.ly/cpgWLg [thanks to Toby Shannon for beautifying them].
We met last week, and discussed these results along with lots of other things. The principal reason for this email is to update people on where we have got to.
- We are agreed that the science communication community is a very diverse group, unified by the fact that they say that their motive is ‘science communication’ or ‘public engagement with science’. However, we have not included teachers (i.e. those working in formal education) or press officers as these fall under wider, more ‘well-defined’ professions. Alongside these ‘professional’ or ‘career’ science communicators, the needs of scientists that communicate as part of their post must also be considered, and those who volunteer.
- The core values underpinning CPD for science communicators must involve reflection, the chance to develop skills and receive credit and/or accreditation by a recognised body.
- We are all clear that a ‘one size fits all’ approach would not be appropriate or practical for such a wide and diverse community and a far more personal touch to CPD must be considered. This model could be based upon existing schemes, such as the Associateship of the Museums Association scheme that some science centres are already involved in.
- Such a model has strengths (and weaknesses) and so we thought we would throw the floor open to you, the potential "consumers" of such a qualification, to get your thoughts. We have deliberately chosen not to do a questionnaire this time, because the sorts of debates that we would like to generate don't sit well on that kind of format. Instead, we thought we would use the wonderful medium of email chat lists to get a conversation-around-the-issues going.
As a starting point, here are three questions which we thought might be interesting.
i. What feel like the benefits of such a course?
ii. What are the problems that you can foresee?
iii. More specifically, how do you feel about the balance between content ("knowledge that") and skills ("knowledge how")?
Further to the email from UWE about their new Diploma qualification, this is obviously an area which is attracting a lot of interest, and so you may (of course) feel that there are other issues which are much more important, so feel free to explore those too...
I look forward to hearing your thoughts
Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dominic McDonald
Sent: 28 May 2010 10:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] Science for All Follow on group: Science
Communicators
(with the usual apologies for cross posting)
Hi all
As you may be aware, the recent Science for All Report was criticised
for downplaying the role of professional science communicators (as
opposed to scientists), and also for downplaying the role of engagement
with the sciences (as opposed to engagement with scientists).
As a result, Roland Jackson has put together a small working group to
look at some of these issues. It consists of Roland, plus
representatives from BIS, Science Centres (Penny Fidler of ASDC),
Science Festivals (me, on behalf of the UK Science Festivals Network)
and Universities engaged in formal Science Communication training
(Stephen Webster of Imperial).
We are agreed that science communicators constituted a distinctive cadre
of people, though the term 'science communicators' was not unambiguous
and not the preferred term for all of us. As a result, we have agreed
to use the term 'Science Communicators/Engagement Specialists' to
emphasise the diversity of a group which includes people who are not
practising scientists and who communicate directly (through science
shows, outreach sessions etc.) and also those who facilitate engagement
by others (including supporting scientists). Our definition does not
encompass a third group, namely artists and others who use science in
their work but who would not consider their purpose to be engagement
with science per se.
One thing that we wondered was whether there is a need for some
different ways of supporting the professional development of Science
Communicators/Engagement Specialists, that might also lead to a
recognised qualification. Currently there are some very good courses run
by Imperial, UWE and the OU (among others), but they require a high
level of commitment and they struggle to accredit informal prior
experience.
In order to inform our discussions we have put together a (very) short
survey which explores a couple of the questions we are thinking about:
if you have a spare 10 minutes then it would be really useful if you
could have a look for us. You can see the survey at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HWTK7MF.
We will be discussing this again at the end of June, so it would be good
if you could have a go at the survey by Friday 18 June.
Many thanks in advance
Dom
Dom McDonald
Head of Public Engagement & Business Networks
Science Oxford
1-5 London Place
Oxford OX4 1BD
T: 01865 728953
D: 01865 810021
F: 01865 791854
www.scienceoxfordlive.com
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of Science Oxford unless
specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete it from your system.
Science Oxford is the public face of The Oxford Trust, a registered
charity no 292664. A company limited by guarantee no 1898691
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
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
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
