Abstract
This project is motivated by an increasing demand from public bodies and research funding agencies for outreach and public engagement, believing this to be a path towards enhanced public understanding, recruitment and research with impact. Yet many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates and professionals lack the appropriate communication skills required to engage with the public. To address some of these issues, the project RACE (RAw Communication and Engagement) was jointly initiated by universities and industrial partners across Europe. Through the design and implementation of adaptable modules incorporating content knowledge, scientific communication and public engagement skills, this international project aims to equip students and researchers alike to ground their work within the wider global society and communicate their research with public audiences. A key feature is the direct incorporation of actual public engagement activities into RACE modules, for the mutual benefit of participants and wider society. Given this, the chapter will take a practitioner perspective to shed light on the inner workings of a modular scientific communication course. Core issues of engagement, bridging theory and practice, evaluation and collaboration are all highlighted through reflections and research data from implementing the RACE programme as a Ph.D. summer school with doctoral-level students. The chapter is concluded by bringing forward core teaching and learning protocols that are integral to running the RACE programme.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756.
Barker, N. C. (2002). Foundations in qualitative methods. In C. Barker, N. Pistrang, & R. Elliott (Eds.), Research methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for students and practitioners (pp. 5–72). Chichester, UK: Wiley London.
Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457.
Bauer, M. W., & Suerdem, A. (2016). Developing science culture indicators through text mining and online media monitoring. In OECD Blue Sky Forum on Science and Innovation Indicators 2016, 19–21 September 2016. Ghent, Belgium: OECD.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. D., Yuan, S., & Abi Ghannam, N. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640.
Blonder, R., Rap, S., Zemler, E., &. Rosenfeld, S. (2017). Assessing attitudes about responsible research and innovation (RRI): The development and use of a questionnaire. Sisyphus Journal of Education, 5(3), 122–156.
Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012). Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627.
Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.849017.
Bultitude, K. (2011). The why and how of science communication. In P. Rosulek (Ed.), Science communication (pp. 31–58). Pilsen: European Commission https://www.scifode-foundation.org/attachments/article/38/Karen_Bultitude_-_Science_Communication_Why_and_How.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The psychologist, 26(2), 120–123. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/21155/.
Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323746.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London; New York: Routledge.
Crouch, C., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835–838. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1707018.
Dillon, J. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201–213.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625.
Edmondston, J., & Dawson, V. (2014). Perspectives of science communication training held by lecturers of biotechnology and science communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.793433.
Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. M. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516633834.
European Commission. (2014). Responsible research and innovation: Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/KI0214595ENC.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2018.
Gago, J. M., Ziman, J., Caro, P., Constantinou, C., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., et al., (2004). Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit Oxford Brookes. https://thoughtsmostlyaboutlearning.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/learning-by-doing-graham-gibbs.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Hayes, S., Brandell, D., & Ho, F. (2018). RAw communication and engagement. In O. E. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, S., & P. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education, Part 17 (co-ed. Jenaro Guisasola), (pp. 2273–2282). Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University. ISBN 978-1-873769-84-3.
Jensen, E. (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010304.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry—Logical or psychological. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/a9rp90001b.
Markic, S., & Childs, P. E. (2016). Language and the teaching and learning of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 434–438. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp90006b.
McCrory, P. (2011). Developing interest in science through emotional engagement. In W. Harlen (Ed.), ASE guide to primary science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
McHugh, M., & McCauley, V. (2015). Designing physics video hooks for science students. Physics Education, 51(1), 015015. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/1/015015.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.
Pelger, S., & Nilsson, P. (2018). Observed learning outcomes of integrated communication training in science education: Skills and subject matter understanding. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1417653.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., et al., (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 634–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515620970.
Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research and innovation. MATTER and the European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2018.
Thomas, S. J. (1999). Designing surveys that work! A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD). (2017). The role of science, technology and innovation in ensuring food security by 2030. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2017d5_en.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2018.
Van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882097.
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 69–80.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York, NY: Routledge.
Woods-Townsend, K., Christodoulou, A., Rietdijk, W., Byrne, J., Griffiths, J. B., & Grace, M. M. (2016). Meet the scientist: The value of short interactions between scientists and students. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1016134.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
This project is funded by the EIT Raw Materials KIC Project 15028, No. FPA 2016/EIT/EIT Raw Materials. This publication has also received support through the Synthesis and Solid State Pharmaceutical Centre, which is funded by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund under Grant 12/RC/2275, as well as the Centre for Discipline-Based Education Research in Mathematics, Engineering, Science and Technology (MINT) at Uppsala University. We would also like to thank the significant contribution of Prof. Daniel Brandell, Uppsala University, and Dr. Paul McCrory of Learn Differently Ltd. in the implementation of the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McHugh, M., Hayes, S., Stapleton, A., Ho, F.M. (2019). RAw Communications and Engagement (RACE): Teaching Science Communication Through Modular Design. In: Schultz, M., Schmid, S., Lawrie, G. (eds) Research and Practice in Chemistry Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6997-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6998-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)