Organiser:Joan Leach, University of Queensland

Speakers:Will Rifkin, University of New South Wales (confirmed), Joan Leach, University of Queensland (confirmed), and Melanie McKenzie, University of Queensland (confirmed). In addition, we have expressions of interest from 12 colleagues in the US, Brazil, and UK who are not yet confirmed but have contributed to the format of this session proposal.

Proposal:This session proposal is for a roundtable discussion of pre-circulated papers on the theme of 'value' in science communication. The 'speakers' above will organise participants (through the PCST list and others) around three theoretical areas:
1. Leach: Values in and values of science communication
2. Rifkin: Negotiations of value and identity in science communication
3. McKenzie: Values operating in science communication evaluation

We propose a session focused on discussion of values that appear to be implicit in various approaches to the communication of science. The discussion will be fuelled by short papers shared on the web before the conference. Then at the conference, presenters in the session will take a few minutes to summarise their thoughts and pose questions in order to stimulate a conversation.

Aim The aim of this session is to begin the theoretical work of an axiology of science communication. What values inform work in science communication, its theory, its practice and its evaluation?

Where some science communicators strive for “clarity,” for example, others might promote "dialogue." We would like to look at espoused values as well as values implicit in approaches to communicating science and then unpack them for analysis and criticism.

What does it mean to be "clear," for example? Furthermore, what are implications for various audiences of this drive for "clarity?" In whose eyes is "clarity" sought, and how would one measure "clarity"? What apparent attitudes and actions would suggest that clarity has been achieved or met? By taking this axiological approach, we can begin to ask the questions of how science communication defines and satisfies its key values.

We are looking for this conversation to involve science communication academics offering relevant theoretical frames. However, we would also like the session to be informed by - and critiqued by - experienced and reflective science communication practitioners.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Theories of value in science communication

Joan Leach   University of Queensland

Melanie McKenzie   University of Queensland

Will Rifkin   University of New South Wales

Organiser:Joan Leach, University of Queensland

Speakers:Will Rifkin, University of New South Wales (confirmed), Joan Leach, University of Queensland (confirmed), and Melanie McKenzie, University of Queensland (confirmed). In addition, we have expressions of interest from 12 colleagues in the US, Brazil, and UK who are not yet confirmed but have contributed to the format of this session proposal.

Proposal:This session proposal is for a roundtable discussion of pre-circulated papers on the theme of 'value' in science communication. The 'speakers' above will organise participants (through the PCST list and others) around three theoretical areas:
1. Leach: Values in and values of science communication
2. Rifkin: Negotiations of value and identity in science communication
3. McKenzie: Values operating in science communication evaluation

We propose a session focused on discussion of values that appear to be implicit in various approaches to the communication of science. The discussion will be fuelled by short papers shared on the web before the conference. Then at the conference, presenters in the session will take a few minutes to summarise their thoughts and pose questions in order to stimulate a conversation.

Aim The aim of this session is to begin the theoretical work of an axiology of science communication. What values inform work in science communication, its theory, its practice and its evaluation?

Where some science communicators strive for “clarity,” for example, others might promote "dialogue." We would like to look at espoused values as well as values implicit in approaches to communicating science and then unpack them for analysis and criticism.

What does it mean to be "clear," for example? Furthermore, what are implications for various audiences of this drive for "clarity?" In whose eyes is "clarity" sought, and how would one measure "clarity"? What apparent attitudes and actions would suggest that clarity has been achieved or met? By taking this axiological approach, we can begin to ask the questions of how science communication defines and satisfies its key values.

We are looking for this conversation to involve science communication academics offering relevant theoretical frames. However, we would also like the session to be informed by - and critiqued by - experienced and reflective science communication practitioners.

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP