Applied Filters
- Science Communication
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
Journal Title
Publication Date
Author
- Côté, Isabelle M2
- Darling, Emily S2
- Arif, Suchinta1
- Axelson, Jodi1
- Bennett, J R1
- Blais, Jules M1
- Booth, Annie1
- Bourbonnais, Mathieu1
- Brisbois, Marie Claire1
- Bubela, Tania1
- Cardinal Christianson, Amy1
- Caulfield, Timothy1
- Chapman, J M1
- Chu, Samantha M1
- Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong1
- Clarke, Amanda1
- Cloutier, Anika1
- Cooke, S J1
- Cooke, Steven J1
- Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey1
- Coristine, Laura E1
- Daniels, Lori D1
- DeRosa, Maria C1
- Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah1
- Donaldson, M R1
Access Type
1 - 14of14
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
| Search Name | Searched On |
|---|---|
| [Subject Areas: Science Communication] AND [Subject Areas: Integrative Sciences] A... (14) | 31 Oct 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSFor science communication to be effective, scientists must understand which sources of information their target audiences most frequently use and trust. We surveyed academic and non-academic scientists, natural resource managers, policymakers, students, and the general public about how they access, trust, and communicate scientific information. We found trust and use of information sources was related to participant age and group identity, but all groups had high levels of use and trust of personal experience and colleagues. Academic journals were the most trusted source by all groups, and social media the least trusted by most groups. The level of communication between target groups was not always bilateral, with the public generally perceiving their interaction with all other groups as low. These results provide remarkable insight into the flow of scientific information. We present these findings in the context of facilitating information flow between scientists and other stakeholders of scientific information.
- OPEN ACCESSScience helps us identify problems, understand their extent, and begin to find solutions; it helps us understand future directions for our society. Scientists bear witness to scenes of change and discovery that most people will never experience. Yet the vividness of these experiences is often left out when scientists talk and write about their work. A growing community of practice is showing that scientists can share their message in an engaging way using a strategy that most are already familiar with: storytelling. Here we draw on our experiences leading scientist communication training and hosting science storytelling events at the International Marine Conservation Congress to share basic techniques, tips, and resources for incorporating storytelling into any scientist’s communication toolbox.
- OPEN ACCESSThere have been strong calls for scientists to share their discoveries with society. Some scientists have heeded these calls through social media platforms such as Twitter. Here, we ask whether Twitter allows scientists to promote their findings primarily to other scientists (“inreach”), or whether it can help them reach broader, non-scientific audiences (“outreach”). We analyzed the Twitter followers of more than 100 faculty members in ecology and evolutionary biology and found that their followers are, on average, predominantly (∼55%) other scientists. However, beyond a threshold of ∼1000 followers, the range of follower types became more diverse and included research and educational organizations, media, members of the public with no stated association with science, and a small number of decision-makers. This varied audience was, in turn, followed by more people, resulting in an exponential increase in the social media reach of tweeting academic scientists. Tweeting, therefore, has the potential to disseminate scientific information widely after initial efforts to gain followers. These results should encourage scientists to invest in building a social media presence for scientific outreach.
- OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Laura E. Coristine,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Chelsea M. Rochman,
- Brian L. Owens, and
- Steven J. Cooke
Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics. - OPEN ACCESSInuit Nunangat, including Nunavik, is seeing an ever-increasing number of research projects. While mainstream approaches to research are colonial in nature and have historically contributed to the oppression of Indigenous peoples, a new paradigm is now emerging from Indigenous recommendations. Researchers are encouraged to collaborate with Inuit or Northern communities, organizations, and governments and to develop communication strategies to keep local populations informed. This paper focuses on outreach activities organized on several occasions throughout the Ice Monitoring project, in which we participated as PhD students. We share details on this periodic outreach program, which included a Facebook page, hosting an information table at the Co-op store, activities with high school classes, and participation in Raglan Mine’s Environmental Forum. We also discuss lessons learned and the transformation of our practice.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Mark Groulx,
- Amanda Winegardner,
- Marie Claire Brisbois,
- Lee Ann Fishback,
- Rachelle Linde,
- Kristin Levy, and
- Annie Booth
Community science involves the co-creation of scientific pursuits, learning, and outcomes and is presented as a transformative practice for community engagement and environmental governance. Emphasizing critical reflection, this study adopts Mezirow’s conception of transformative learning to theorize the transformative capacity of community science. Findings from interviews with participants in a community science program reveal critical reflection, although instances acknowledging attitudes and beliefs without challenging personal assumptions were more common. Program elements most likely to prompt participants to identify beliefs, values, and assumptions include data collection and interaction in team dynamics, whereas data collection in a novel environment was most likely to prompt participants to challenge their beliefs, values, and assumptions. A review of 71 climate change focused programs further demonstrates the extent that program designs support transformative learning. Key features of the community science landscape like the broad inclusion of stated learning objectives offer a constructive starting point for deepening transformative capacity, while the dominance of contributory program designs stands as a likely roadblock. Overall, this study contributes by applying a developed field to theorize transformation in relation to community science and by highlighting where facilitators should focus program design efforts to better promote transformation toward environmental sustainability. - OPEN ACCESSCOVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.
- OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- S.J. Cooke,
- N. Young,
- M.R. Donaldson,
- E.A. Nyboer,
- D.G. Roche,
- C.L. Madliger,
- R.J. Lennox,
- J.M. Chapman,
- Z. Faulkes, and
- J.R. Bennett
For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions. - OPEN ACCESSThe drivers of the harassment and intimidation of researchers are complex, widespread, and global in their reach and were being studied across many disciplines even before COVID-19. This policy briefing reviews some of the scholarship on this wide-ranging problem but focuses on what can be done to help ensure that Canadians fully benefit from the work of Canada’s researchers while also preserving the security and safety of those researchers. It identifies policies and actions that can be implemented in the near term to gather information on the problem, better frame public research communications, and ensure that mechanisms are readily available to support researchers who are threatened. The policy briefing is concerned with researchers, but these behaviours are also harming journalists, politicians, public health communicators, and many others more fully in the public eye than researchers. Some recommendations here may help to address this wider problem.
- OPEN ACCESSAn exponentially growing body of international research engages with plastic pollution using different ideas on the right ways to frame, research, and intervene in the problem. The premise of this study is that all scientists work with understandings of what is right and wrong and why that is (models of justice) in their research, even when it is not explicitly stated, reflected upon, or a conscious part of the discussion. We surveyed 755 published articles on marine debris and plastic chemical additives and found that all evoked at least one model of justice, and often more. The most routinely used models included: developmental justice, distributive justice, and procedural justice. More rarely, we found appeals to environment-first justice and Indigenous sovereignty. While occasionally these multiple models worked synergistically, more often they conflicted. Our findings ground a call for fellow researchers to use a more intentional and systematic approach to evoking models of justice in our work. Our goal is to offer descriptions and insights about models of justice that are already being deployed to increase the sophistication of the ethical and normative orientations of our research and our fields, both in plastic pollution sciences and beyond.
- OPEN ACCESSResearchers in the environmental studies and sciences play a critical role in influencing real-world decision-making and policies. However, interference during research and sharing of results has been documented in Canada and around the world. Further, research has shown that workers from marginalized social identitie(s) experience discrimination in the workplace. Whether interference in research is related to social identity has never been examined. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed 741 environmental researchers in Canada to understand the relationship between social identity (gender, disability status, 2SLGBTQI+ status, race, and perception of racial identity) and reported experiences of interference. Results found that researchers with marginalized identities experienced worse outcomes across 11 of the 25 quantitative measures. For example, most marginalized groups experienced significantly greater fear of misrepresentation by media and (or) fear of negative career consequences due to public commentary, and racialized and disabled persons reported greater external interference in their work (e.g., from management and workplace policy). Given these findings, we express concern that the experience of interference in research can (1) threaten the personal well-being of marginalized researchers, (2) limit the representativeness of information disseminated, thererby impacting environmental decision-making and policy, and (3) contribute to inequities in representativeness of marginalized researchers in environmental sciences in Canada.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Mathieu Bourbonnais,
- Jodi Axelson,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Lori D. Daniels,
- Robert W. Gray,
- Peter Holub,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Dinyar Minocher, and
- Dave Pascal
Western Canada is increasingly experiencing impactful and complex wildfire seasons. In response, there are urgent calls to implement prescribed and cultural fire as a key solution to this complex challenge. Unfortunately, there has been limited investment in individuals and organizations that can navigate this complexity and work to implement collaborative solutions across physical, cognitive, and social boundaries. In the wildfire context, these boundaries manifest as jurisdictional silos, a lack of respect for certain forms of knowledge, and a disconnect between knowledge and practice. Here, we highlight the important role of “boundary spanners” in building trust, relationships, and capacity to enable collaboration, including through five case studies from western Canada. As individuals and organizations who actively work across and bridge boundaries between diverse actors and knowledge systems, we believe that boundary spanners can play a key role in supporting proactive wildfire management. Boundary spanning activities include: convening workshops, hosting joint training exercises, supporting knowledge exchange and communities of practice, and creating communication tools and resources. These activities can help overcome unevenly valued knowledge, lack of trust, and outdated policies. We need collaborative approaches to implement prescribed and cultural fire, including a strong foundation for the establishment of boundary spanning individuals and organizations.