Advertisement

ARE STUDENTS PREPARED TO COMMUNICATE? A CASE STUDY OF AN AUSTRALIAN DEGREE COURSE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

  • Joanne Edmondston
  • Vaille DawsonEmail author
  • Renato Schibeci
Article

ABSTRACT

Public concerns about biotechnology have resulted in greater attention being paid to the mechanisms by which biotechnology is communicated with non-scientists, including the provision of science communication training. As undergraduate and postgraduate courses form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. Using an Australian biotechnology degree course as a case study, this paper examines science communication training within this course and the views of past and present students towards this training. Interviews were undertaken with 22 stakeholders in the case, including undergraduate lecturers (who also supervise postgraduate research students), doctoral candidates and biotechnologists recently graduated from the course. Few of the students felt the course provided them with any form of science communication training, let alone training in how to engage non-scientists. Many were unaware of the training available to them and few of the lecturers were able to identify where communication skills are taught within the course. A previous study of this case has also shown that biotechnology undergraduates taking this course do not value communication with non-scientists. Clearly, the current state of science communication training for these students needs to be improved if they are to enter the biotechnology workforce as able civic scientists. The findings of this study may be useful for other university biotechnology courses which have yet to integrate science communication training into their curriculum.

KEY WORDS

biotechnology biotechnology education civic science public engagement with science and technology science communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  3. Borchelt, R. E. (2001). Communicating the future. Science Communication, 23(2), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, C. P., Propst, S. M. & Woolley, M. (2004). Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Science Communication, 25(3), 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, B. (2001). Strategies for improving communication between scientists and the public. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 8(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
  7. Edmondston, J., Dawson, V. & Schibeci, R. (2010). Undergraduate Biotechnology students’ views of science communication. International Journal of Science Education, [iFirst].Google Scholar
  8. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L. & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. A guide to methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Errington, S., Bryant, C. & Gore, M. G. (2001). The evolution of science communication courses: Training scientists to communicate. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Public Communication and Strategy. Trends in Science Communication Today—Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice, Cern, Geneva.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, P. & Franco, C. (2003). Australian Universities Teaching Committee review of biotechnology. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Gregory, J. (2003). Understanding ‘science and the public’. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10(2), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hisschemoller, M. & Midden, C. J. H. (1999). Improving the usability of research on the public perception of science and technology for policy-making. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. House of Lords (2000). Science and society. Select committee on science and technology third report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, A., Dennis, C. & Campbell, P. (2007). Nature’s guide for mentors. Nature, 447, 791–797. 4 June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, S., Fahy, D. & Team, E. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists fir reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mulder, H., Longnecker, N. & Davis, L. (2008). The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30(2), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Academy of Sciences (1997). Adviser, teacher, role model, friend: On being a mentor to students in science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. NSF/DOC (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. OECD (2005) OECD science technology and industry scoreboard 2005. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/52/35465901.pdf.
  21. Oppenheim, A. N. (2001). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. QSR International (2002). Using NVivo in qualitative research. Software manual (3rd ed.). Melbourne: QSR International.Google Scholar
  23. Quicke, J. (2001). The science curriculum and education for democracy in the risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Royal Society (2006). Science and the public interest. Communicating the results of new scientific research to the public. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  25. Royal Society (2006b). Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Retrieved from http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id = 3180&printer = 1.
  26. Shortland, M. & Gregory, J. (1991). Communicating science. A handbook. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Wellcome Trust/MORI (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanne Edmondston
    • 1
  • Vaille Dawson
    • 2
    Email author
  • Renato Schibeci
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate Research SchoolUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.School of EducationMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations