Advertisement

Vital and Vulnerable: Science Communication as a University Subject

  • Brian TrenchEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Over nearly three decades, science communication has become established as a subject of teaching and research in universities across the world. Its standing as an academic discipline continues to be debated, but graduate degree programs and doctoral research in the field are increasing. Partly reflecting its inherent multi- and interdisciplinary content, science communication is embedded in different institutions in different ways. These developments have been driven mainly by individual champions, but in some cases also by institutional and government policies. The diversity of science communication programs reflects in part the various histories and institutional affiliations of the programs. The diversity can be seen as a sign of the subject’s vitality but it is also a condition of its vulnerability. Many science communication teaching programs have given rise to consultancies, applied research, publishing and, perhaps most notably, doctoral research, but information from the promoters of science communication programs indicates that some programs are particularly exposed to the rationalization affecting higher education institutions in many countries. Science communication’s position between and across disciplines and departments may mean it is not always well equipped to defend itself just when this need is most apparent.

Keywords

Science communication Institutional support Interdisciplinarity Master’s programs Ph.D. research Economic conditions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the coordinators of science communication programs who responded to my questions. Several also generously contributed additional comments.

References

  1. Bell, A. R., Davies, S. R., & Mellor, F. (Eds.). (2008). Science and its publics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, D. J., & Jennings, R. C. (Eds.). (2011). Successful science communication: Telling it like it is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brake, M. L., & Weitkamp, E. (Eds.). (2010). Introducing science communication: A practical guide. Houndsmills/Hants: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (Eds.). (2008). Communicating science in social contexts. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, L. S. (2010). Science communication: A ‘down under’ perspective. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 7, 65–71, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2115/42663.Google Scholar
  7. de Burgh, H. (2003). Skills are not enough: The case for journalism as an academic discipline. Journalism, 4(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Semir, V. (2009). Master in scientific, medical and environmental communication. Journal of Science Communication, 8(1).Google Scholar
  9. EC (European Commission). (2010). European guide to science journalism training. Brussels: EC. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2007/bcn2007/guide_to_science_journalism_en.pdf
  10. ENSCOT Team. (2003). ENSCOT: The European network of science communication teachers. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gascoigne, T., et al. (2010). Is science communication its own field? Journal of Science Communication, 9(3).Google Scholar
  12. Greco, P. (2009). The master’s degree of Trieste. Journal of Science Communication, 8(1).Google Scholar
  13. Haynes, E. R. (2009). A graduate course for science communicators: A Mexican approach. Journal of Science Communication, 8(1).Google Scholar
  14. Holliman, R., et al. (Eds.). (2009a). Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Holliman, R., et al. (Eds.). (2009b). Practising science communication in the information age: Theorising professional practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hong, C.-P., & Wehrmann, C. (2010). Do science communication university programs equip students to become professionals? A comparison of 20 university programs worldwide. Paper presented to 11th international conference on public communication of science and technology, New Delhi, 6–9 Dec 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Kahlor, L. E., & Stout, P. (Eds.). (2009). Communicating science: New agendas in communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lynch, M. (2011). Still emerging after all these years. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 3–4, Editorial.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellor, F., Davies, S. R., & Bell, A. R. (2008). Introduction: ‘Solverating the Problematising’. In A. R. Bell, S. R. Davies, & F. Mellor (Eds.), Science and its publics (pp. 1–14). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, S. (2008). So where’s the theory? On the relationship between science communication practice and research. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 275–287). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulder, H., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. (2008). The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 80(2), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Priest, S. H. (2010). Coming of age in the academy? The status of our emerging field. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3).Google Scholar
  23. Science and the Media Expert Group. (2010). Science and the media: Securing the future. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/files/2010/01/Science-and-the-Media-Securing-the-Future.pdf
  24. Trench, B. (2009). MSc in science communication, Dublin City University. Journal of Science Communication, 8(1).Google Scholar
  25. Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3).Google Scholar
  26. Turney, J. (1994). Teaching science communication: Courses, curricula, theory and practice. Public Understanding of Science, 3(4), 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Sanden, M., & Trench, B. (2010). Analysis of doctoral research in science communication. Paper presented to 11th international conference on public communication of science and technology, New Delhi, 6–9 Dec 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Vogt, C., et al. (2009). Master’s degree program in scientific and cultural communication: Preliminary reports on an innovative experience in Brazil. Journal of Science Communication, 8(1).Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. London: Abacus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationsDublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations