PCST 2025

Identifying, disentangling & reflecting on traditions in science communication

Richard Holliman, The Open University

In early May 2024 I visited the University of Aberdeen. Colleagues and I from the international PCST Network reviewed sites for the biennial conference that's scheduled for 27-29 May 2025.

During the course of the visit I presented in a symposium on the themes of the forthcoming PCST Conference (Traditions, Transitions and Tensions) alongside old friends from the EU-funded project ENSCOT, Melanie Smallman and Declan Fahy.

My contribution to the discussion of the themes of the forthcoming PCST Conference explored traditions in science communication.

I explored the role of traditions in science communication from three perspectives:

• Identifying traditions: How many useful and relevant traditions are 'hidden in plain sight'? What can we learn from identifying and exploring traditions in the context of science communication?
• Disentangling traditions: What can we learn from exploring science communication as a (multi)cultural phenomenon? Can research into (de)colonialisation, diversity, difference and globalisation drive positive change in science communication?
• Reflecting traditions: Do science communicators share the same traditions? Do traditions in science communication help or hinder research and practice? What can we learn from recognising, reflecting on, and revising traditions?

My argument was that, by identifying traditions science communicators, we can make connections between the past, the present and the future, between science as a culture and other cultures, and between scientists and other communities. I used the Giant's Causeway as an example that connects the island of Ireland with Scotland through myth, legend and scientific explanation. To draw on the theme of PCST 2023, I argued that by identifying traditions in combination with scientific explanations we can help to 'co-create common ground' with wider constituencies in society.

I went on to argue that, when science communicators fail to disentangle traditions, there is a danger that they can exacerbate pre-existing forms of disadvantage and discrimination. Drawing on the work of Rajesh Tanden , I highlighted examples where knowledge within Indigenous cultures is more complex than the Western European versions.

I drew on recent engagement between minoritized community walking groups and environmental scientists in the UK (Holliman et al. 2024 ) to argue that science communicators and wider constituencies can learn from exploring science communication as a (multi)cultural phenomenon and that research into (de)colonialisation, diversity, difference and globalisation can drive positive change in science communication if equitable principles underpin our work.

In reflecting on traditions, I made the contention that science communicators do not share the same traditions, but that some traditions have dominated our conversations at PCST Conferences because we focus on them at the exclusion of other perspectives. I argued that if we expand our horizons to explore 'majority-world ' perspectives, our conversations about the roots of science communication will be all the richer.

I finished my contribution by arguing that traditions in science communication can help or hinder research and practice depending on who is engaged and how we engage with wider constituencies and that we can learn much from recognising, reflecting on, and revising traditions.

I hope we can continue to discuss these important issues at #PCST2025 .

Dr Melanie Smallman discussed 'Transitions' within a science communication context

Over the past 20 or more years, Melanie argued that we have seen science communication framed as 'deficit to dialogue' as we have moved from believing opposition to science was due to lack of knowledge, to understanding that the benefits and risks of science and technology are not shared equally, giving rise to public concerns and opposition. As noted in the 'tensions' talk she argued that we have seen a big shift to involving the public in discussions about scientific developments but at the same time, episodes like the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapidly advancing climate crisis highlight the role of knowledge and information, the absence of science communicators - and perhaps the insufficiency of our engagement approach. So what is the next science communication idea or concept that we need to think about as we head into the climate crisis?

She raised the following areas that she would like to see explored further in Aberdeen:

1. Place: It is clear that science communication is by necessity a context-specific practice and that lessons learned in the Global South have as much potential to be valuable and insightful to the Global North as vice versa. How do we transition to a community whereby lessons are both global and local simultaneously?
2. Roles and skills: The pressing climate crisis might create the demand for us to become more activist in our science communication approach with an aim to drive changes in behaviour. At the same time the availability of generative AI raises questions about whether there is a need for science communicators to play a translational role anymore and what 'value' can we add. What role have science communicators had in global events like COVID-19 - what can we learn and where should we focus our efforts in the future? What do work and jobs in 'science communication' look like in the future? Who are the employers?
3. Society: Aberdeen's history is entwined with that of the oil industry but it is now in a period of transition towards a cleaner, greener economy. The broader question relates to how societal transitions are linked with science communication? How do we acknowledge this societal transition in the context of the PCST Network at the 2025 conference?

In reaction to these points, the discussion in the room expanded on the following areas:

Science communicators were not heard during the pandemic but this may relate to how each of us defines ourselves. Science communicators who are behind the scenes and they were present - their faces might not have been present but their work was.

Should the non-public-facing professionals be public? A move from tradition to transition?

How are we anticipating the next crisis and are we (science communicators) in this discussion already?

Dr Declan Fahy presented his thoughts about Tensions

Declan argued that science communication as a field of academic discipline has evolved due to external needs and pressures. He noted work by Professor Jon Agar who analysed key trends in science - including the involvement of the public in science and that programmes for the public understanding of science in the UK emerged in response to high-profile issues such as the MMR vaccine.

These are the tensions highlighted by Declan:

1. The call for public participation - the tension between democratic participation versus communication by scientific elites aimed at public legitimation.
2. The field's 'co-dependent relationship with deficit thinking'. Dietram Scheufele noted that deficit model thinking has underpinned much of the work labelled as 'misinformation and disinformation'.
3. The relationship between civic communication and promotional communication and professionalisation. Is this science communication that aims at civic engagement, citizen knowledge or empowerment? Or is it public relations for universities and research centres a way to project a favourable image to funders and a way to enhance research and funding metrics?
4. For the final tension, Declan noted a reflection from Professor Sarah Davis in her evaluation of the PCST Conference in Rotterdam,

“The most engaging coffee break conversations I had featured things that were explicitly not being talked about in conference sessions: the relationship between science and the military; researchers' role in bringing about wealth inequality; colonialism and neocolonialism in science and science communication”.

Sarah Davis picked up on the tendency of sessions to pick up on smaller / macro projects and issues within conference sessions - failure to address large-scale issues around science and society. This will involve science communication research taking a more critical stance.

Declan agued that the Aberdeen conference offers a chance to write new histories, to offer other ways of understanding science communication. Finally, he made the closing remarks that he hopes conference participants will produce work that locates different points of historical origin for science communication, outside of only Western contexts.

From the discussion the group reflected on the point that a lot of the science communication theories were reactionary - should we as science communicators be planning rather than only be reacting? Too much reaction can get in the way of the progression of the field. Rather than seeing science communication as a form of crisis communication should we be looking for a philosophy of science communication?

Tensions are essential - there are so many different stakeholders but what is the healthy way to solve tensions and can science communicators help this process?