Applied Filters
- Science Applications Forum
- Science CommunicationRemove filter
Journal Title
Publication Date
Author
- Boon, Sarah1
- Bubela, Tania1
- Caulfield, Timothy1
- Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong1
- Clarke, Amanda1
- Cooke, Steven J1
- Danylchuk, Andy J1
- Diomede, Dylan1
- Donaldson, Michael R1
- Gallagher, Austin J1
- Germain, Ryan R1
- Green, Stephanie J1
- Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten1
- Hammerschlag, Neil1
- Herder, Matthew1
- Hutton, Brian1
- Kelly, Shannon E1
- Kimmelman, Jonathan1
- Mannix, Heather1
- Moher, David1
- Murchie, Karen J1
- Nguyen, Vivian M1
- Perkin, Elizabeth K1
- Ramey, Tonya L1
- Ramos, Howard1
Access Type
1 - 7of7
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 |
|---|---|
| [Paper Type: Science Applications Forum] AND [Subject Areas: Science Communication] (7) | 26 Mar 2025 |
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 ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Austin J. Gallagher,
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Rachel A. Skubel,
- Neil Hammerschlag,
- Sarah Boon,
- Nathan Young, and
- Andy J. Danylchuk
It is increasingly common for scientists to engage in sharing science-related knowledge with diverse knowledge users—an activity called science communication. Given that many scientists now seek information on how to communicate effectively, we have generated a list of 16 important considerations for those interested in science communication: (1) Define what science communication means to you and your research; (2) Know—and listen to—your target audience; (3) Consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio; (4) Draft skilled players and build a network; (5) Create and seize opportunities; (6) Be creative when you communicate; (7) Focus on the science in science communication; (8) Be an honest broker; (9) Understand the science of science communication; (10) Think like an entrepreneur; (11) Don’t let your colleagues stop you; (12) Integrate science communication into your research program; (13) Recognize how science communication enhances your science; (14) Request science communication funds from grants; (15) Strive for bidirectional communication; and (16) Evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt. It is our ambition that the ideas shared here will encourage readers to engage in science communication and increase the effectiveness of those already active in science communication, stimulating them to share their experiences with others. - 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 ACCESSGuidance on improving the visual aspects of science communication range from “recipe”-style instructions to hyper-focused aspects of data visualization. Currently lacking in the peer-reviewed literature is a primer in graphic design tailored to a high-level overview of basic design principles and associated jargon related to layout, imagery, typeface, and colour. We illustrate why these aspects are important to effective communication. Further, we provide considerations on when to solicit professional assistance and what to expect when working with graphic designers. Having the fundamental principles of good design in your toolbox facilitates the production of effective visual communication related to your research and fruitful scientist–designer collaborations.
- 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
- Sharon E. Straus,
- Brian Hutton,
- David Moher,
- Shannon E. Kelly,
- George A. Wells, and
- Andrea C. Tricco
In 2009, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and other stakeholders established the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) to address the paucity of information on drug safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. This unique network invited knowledge users (e.g., policy makers) to submit queries to be answered by relevant research teams. The research teams were launched via open calls for team grants focused in relevant methodologic areas. We describe the development and implementation of one of these collaborating centres, the Methods and Application Group for Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC). MAGIC was created to provide high-quality knowledge synthesis including network meta-analysis to meet knowledge user needs. Since 2011, MAGIC responded to 54% of queries submitted to DSEN. In the past 5 years, MAGIC produced 26 reports and 49 publications. It led to 15 trainees who entered industry, academia, and government. More than 10 000 people participated in courses delivered by MAGIC team members. Most importantly, MAGIC knowledge syntheses influenced practice and policy (e.g., use of biosimilars for patients with diabetes and use of smallpox vaccinations in people with contraindications) provincially, nationally, and internationally. - 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.