Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Fiction Fan Conventions as Places to Communicate Science

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science fiction conventions are places where the convergence of science fiction and science is discussed within diverse communities. Many of these science fiction conventions offer programming focused on science, often described as science tracks, for science experts to share their experiences, expertise, scientific findings, and applications related to current research in connection to science fiction with the public. Framing the study within a socio-cultural context, this study surveyed experts’ (n = 19) perceived beliefs of science communication at science fiction conventions. Experts cited accessibility and promoting scientific curiosity as the greatest benefits and identified misconceptions or misinterpretation by the audience as challenges. Overall, experts agreed that communicating science is important and science fiction has a great impact on science. Because of the public access to experts, it is important to highlight the potential influence science fiction conventions may have on science communication via socio-cultural experiences and contexts within popular culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Adams, J., & Gupta, P. (2017). Informal science institutions and learning to teach: An examination of identify, agency, and affordances. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 121–138.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Science communication with the public: A cross-cultural event. In C. Bryant, M. Gore, & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (pp. 23–45). Dordrecht: Kluwer International.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2019). Encountering Science in America. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondi, G. A.(2011). Close encounters of a different kind: A study of science fiction fan culture and its interactions with multiple literacies. (PhD dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3464625).

  • Bubela, C., Geller, G., O’Riordan, K., Jandciu, E. W., Ouellette, C., Lougheed, T., Thavaratnam, T., Caulfield, T., Nisbet, M. C., Gupta, A., Kolopack, P., Nerlich, B., Hampel, J., Borchelt, R., Willemse, L., Hyde-Lay, R., Jones, S. A., Strauss, S., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. L. (2019). Fighting science misinformation. American Scientist, 107(2), 69–69. https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, G., Governor, D., Greer, K., & James, V. (2023). Oh, the places we learn! Exploring interest in science at science fiction conventions. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 26(4), 40–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, G., Governor, D., Osmond, D., & Britton, S. (2022). Science cafes: Exploring adults’ motivation to learn science in a community space. Research in Science Education, 52, 1055–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09982-2

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ Scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciubotariu, I. I., & Bosch, G. (2022). Improving research integrity: A framework for responsible science communication. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 1–177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06065-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, E., & Jakobsson, A. (2012). Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: Approaching sociocultural perspectives. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S., Halpern, M., Horst, M., Kirby, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). Science stories as culture: Experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication. Journal of Science Communication, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method . New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.

  • Donghong, C., & Shunke, S. (2008). The more, the earlier, the better: Science communication supports science education. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 151–163). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dragon Con. (2021). Things to do. Retrieved from: https://www.dragoncon.org/things-to-do/

  • Ferguson, L., & Seery, M. (2022). Role models and inspirations of LGBT+ scientists. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 444–451.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, S., & Lezotte, S. (2020). Exploring the state of science stereotypes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the Draw-A-Scientist Checklist. School Science and Mathematics, 120, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, N., Swim, J. K., Fraser, J., & Flinner, K. (2017). Catalyzing public engagement with climate change through informal science learning centers. Science Communication, 39(2), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017697980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbina, T. V. (2022). Science disinformation: On the problem of fake news. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 48(4), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688221040092

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, M. J. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, V. (2020). Science communication efforts and identity at popular culture conventions. Science Communication, 42(3), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I., Pietri, E., Fullilove, F., & Mowrer, S. (2019). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Childers, G., Andre, T., Corin, E., & Hite, R. (2018). Citizen scientists and non-citizen scientist hobbyists: Motivation, benefits, and influences. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jucan, M. S., & Jucan, C. N. (2014). The power of science communication. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 461–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laprise, S., & Winrich, C. (2010). The impact of science fiction films on student interest in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrakas, P. (2008). Survey Ethics. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

  • Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Little, C. C. (2012). An exploration of flow, knowledge acquisition, and transfer in the leisure pursuits of science fiction fans. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903342303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loizzo, J., Connor, N., Cannon, K., Janning, E., & Rollins, J. (2019). Informal science engagement via extension exhibits: A pilot evaluation of adult state fairgoers’ experiences, attitudes, and learning at Raising Nebraska. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Goñi, I., & Sánchez-Angulo, M. (2018). Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: Focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maron, J. L. (2020). Rethinking our approach to the public mistrust of science. Clinical Therapeutics, 42(12), 2239–2240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, N., Weber, C., Goldman, S., Schatz, D., Allen, S., & Menlove, R. (2019). Beyond the deficit model: The ambassador approach to public engagement. BioScience, 69(4), 305–315 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26661290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAP - National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teaching Association. (2012). An NSTA position statement: Learning science in informal environments. Retrieved from https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_Informal.pdf

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NRC - National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC - National Research Council. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil, S., & Shivane, A. (2016). Research methodology in social sciences. New Delhi: New India Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A. (2022). Anti-science misinformation and conspiracies: COVID–19, post-truth, and science & technology studies (STS). Science, Technology & Society , 27(1), 88–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218211003413

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rakedzon, S., Chapnik, N., Yosef, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PloS One, 12(8), e0181742–e0181742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10067

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., & Williams, G. F. (2006). Communication about science in a traditional museum: Visitors’ and staff's perceptions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 791–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9035-8

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. (2012). Understanding survey research: Applications and processes. British Journal of Midwifery, 20(2), 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 931–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simis, M., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M., & Yeo, S. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, T. F., & Slater, S. J. (2019). Improving Hawaiian science education by leveraging science fiction conventions. SFRA Review, 330, 70–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treise, D., & Weigold, M. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viggiano, G., Davis, H., Ng, C., & Sweeney, M. (2020). The effects of a museum of science fiction event on participant knowledge and interest in science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 39(4), 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science communication, 23(2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, A. (2017). The world’s scientists are getting older. What does that mean for research? Retrieved from https://theweek.com/articles/691429/worlds-scientists-are-getting-older-what-does-that-mean-researchAugust 1, 2019.

  • Yuan, S., Oshita, T., AbiGhannam, N., Dudo, A., Besley, J., & Koh, H. (2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., & McClain, L. R. (2016). Family learning outdoors: Guided participation on a nature walk. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 919–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21254

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STEM Education, College of Education, Texas Tech University, 3002 18th Street, Lubbock, TX, 79409-1071, USA

    Gina Childers

  2. College of Education, University of North Georgia, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA, 30533, USA

    Donna Governor

  3. Center for STEM Education, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, 275 C.O.E Drive, Room 3161, Statesboro, GA, 30458, USA

    Kania Greer

  4. College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Vaughan James

Authors
  1. Gina Childers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donna Governor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kania Greer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vaughan James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gina Childers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Descriptive survey questions

1. What State do you currently reside in at the time of this convention?

2. How many years have you attended Dragon Con?

3. What is your gender?

4. What is your age range?

5. What best describes where you work?

6. Do you consider your job STEM/science-related?

7. What is your job title?

8. What is your education level?

9. What is your race?

10. What is your ethnicity?

11. In your opinion, how much science fiction will become science fact in the next 10 years?

12. What would you say is the most significant scientific discovery of the past 10 years? [Select an option]

13. What would you say is the most significant scientific discovery of the past 10 years? [Describe the option]

14. How did you first hear about this discovery?

15. Do you think Dragon Con is a good location to learn science?

16. Do you think cross-listing fiction and non-fiction tracks at the Con would increase attendance at non-fiction venues?

17. What other ways (besides Dragon Con) do you practice science communication?

18a. I believe communicating science is important.

18b. The public does not understand science.

18c. Media portrays science as easy.

18d. Conventions are great ways to communicate science to the public.

18e. Most scientists do not know how to make science exciting to the public.

18f. Fields of science which are not my own challenge me.

18g. People expect too much from science.

18h. Science fiction has a great impact on science fact.

18i. I wonder how the science I present will be used after Dragon Con.

18j. I enjoy presenting to the public more than to my peers.

19. How many years have you presented at Dragon Con?

20. What is the value of engaging in science communication with the public?

21. What are the drawbacks of communicating science with the public?

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Childers, G., Governor, D., Greer, K. et al. Science Fiction Fan Conventions as Places to Communicate Science. Res Sci Educ 54, 149–166 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10130-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10130-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation