So Where’s the Theory? on the Relationship between Science Communication Practice and Research

  • Steve MillerEmail author


There has been little, if any, research looking at how well practical science communicators are connected with the relevant research literature. Indeed, there is little—if anything—written about who makes up the science communication community. This chapter reports on a short survey of attendees at the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2007 Science Communication conference. The survey gives some indication of what science communicators have by way of training, and what they are reading that is relevant to their professional lives. It finds that the community is relatively young and predominantly female, with generally high levels of science education. Training in science communication is less prevalent, however, and over 40% of the conference delegates who responded did not read any of the relevant journals in the field. This chapter discusses whether there may be mutual misunderstanding between science communication practitioners and social scientists who carry out research in the area. It puts forward an example of the use of research on public perceptions of risk in science communication training.


Communicating risk science communication training 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bauer, M., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1985) (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Durant, J. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  4. EC (European Commission) (2001). Science and society action plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  5. EC (European Commission) (2002). Report of the expert group benchmarking the promotion of RTD culture and the public understanding of science. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. EC (European Commission) (2005). Eurobarometer 224. Europeans, science and society. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Frewer, L., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M. & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. London: Plenum.Google Scholar
  9. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S. & Griffin, R. (2002). Attributions in explanations of risk estimates. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Magill, S. & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Leeds: Leeds Media Services.Google Scholar
  12. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K. & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Major, A. & Atwood, L. (2004). Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems and values. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, S. (2003). Science communication’s burnt bridges. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, S. (2007). The fourth deficit? Science and Public Affairs, September, 15.Google Scholar
  17. O’Neill, K. (2003). A vital fluid: Risk, controversy and the politics of blood donation in the era of ‘mad cow disease’. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Payne, R. (1992). Chernobyl reaches Norway: The accident, science and the threat to cultural knowledge. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rayner, S. (2007). The fourth deficit?—Reply. Science and Public Affairs, September, 16.Google Scholar
  20. SCST (Select Committee on Science and Technology) (2000). Science and society. Third report. London: House of Lords.Google Scholar
  21. Stocklmayer, S., Gore, M. & Bryant, C. (Eds.) (2001). Science communication in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Academic.Google Scholar
  22. UK Government (2003). GM Nation? Report. Retrieved from
  23. Weingart, P., Engels, A. & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: Discourse on climate change in science, politics and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and the public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology Studies, Physics and AstronomyUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations