Obviously, this website represents a hyper-focused representation of science communication. The suggested readings I’ve listed below are meant to be a jumping off point for you to explore how science, technology, and society studies thinks about science communication and education in non-lab spaces. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I encourage anyone seeking out more information to reach out to any informal education spaces (like libraries and museums).

 

1. Bell P, Lewenstein B, Shouse A, Feder M, eds. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. National Academies Press. 2009.

A research report summarizing the current state of informal science education. This is a long book, but chapters 1 and 2, the introduction and theoretical perspectives, chapter 5, on science learning in designed settings, and chapter 7, diversity and equity, may provide some helpful insights and suggest further reading material.

2. McCallie, Ellen, et al. Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. CAISE. May 2019.

This is a great introduction for anyone looking to encourage public engagement with science in  informal settings. The introduction does a great job of grounding public engagement of science within science, technology, and society studies, as well as comparing it to the science literacy goals of public understanding of science. This report details how to diversify the communities that are reached through public engagement with science and the informal settings in which public engagement is pursued.

 

3. Scheufele, Dietram A. “Communicating Science in Social Settings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Aug. 2013.

A great discussion of the potential pitfalls that arise and research scientists and the internet become the main sources of science news. The section “A Few Areas That Require Us to Rethink Our Assumptions—and the Empirical Social Science That Tells Us Why” highlights these potential pitfalls well and illustrates the need for physical and social scientists to have open channels of communication.

 

4. AAAS website https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit/communication-fundamentals

This website contains a great overview of how to develop goals for any public engagement with science activities. It’s a great place to start if you’re developing a new science activity or want to adapt an old activity to create a space for dialogue and public engagement.

I haven’t had a chance to read this book yet, but you may also find the  AAAS booklet Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-based Communication useful in your work (free download available here: https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/resources-engaging-scientists-project)

 

5. The National Academy of Sciences report on “Communicating Science Effectively: A research agenda”.

A National Academy report focused on mapping the current state of science communication and identifying potential areas where more research or consensus is needed. The sections “Key Individual and Organizational Factors: Different Audiences, Different Needs” and “Presenting Information in Different Forms” provide both a rationale for considering the audience of your communication and different ways to think about communication in the context of audience needs. There’s also a good section on communicating to policy makers if that’s something you’d like to pursue.

6. Salmon, Rhian A., et al. “The Reflexive Scientist: An Approach to Transforming Public Engagement.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Mar. 2017.

This article emphasizes the need to help scientists understand the goals of public engagement with science in order to create more science communicators who promote dialogue in their outreach. The authors are a physical science, social scientist, and science writer, and they combine their areas of expertise to develop strategies for scientists attempting to engage in reflexivity, or a self-questioning of their own views, in public engagement with science. I’d recommend this paper to anyone who identifies with any of the three areas of expertise listed above.

7. Medin, Douglas L., and Megan Bang. “The Cultural Side of Science Communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sept. 2014.

This research article explores how different cultures perceive scientific relationships. The focus is on the different cultural orientations of Native Americans and European Americans influence perceptions of humanity’s relationship with the natural world. By exploring both explanations of nature and images of nature created in children’s books, the authors show that cultural epistemologies influence how humans perceive themselves relative to natural phenomena. It also emphasizes the need to understand how science communication for children in particular may privilege one culture’s orientation towards nature over all others.

 

8. Wynne, Brian. “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Mar. 1989.

This case study was one of the first to reject the deficit model in science communication. Wynne discusses sheep farmers in England who suffered significant financial hardship after their area was contaminated by fallout from the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. This case study would later form part of Wynne’s belief that scientists are at most knowledge experts (they know a lot of scientific facts) but their type of expertise should not be more privileged than any other form of expertise in the decision-making process. Acknowledging the importance of non-science expertise in decision making and science communication is slowly becoming standard practice. Wynne has published several articles on the expert-lay divide, as he terms it, but this is by far the most accessible.

9. Simis, Molly J., et al. “The Lure of Rationality: Why Does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication?” Public Understanding of Science, Apr. 2016.

A discussion of reasons why physical scientists continue to use deficit models of communication with lay people. In particular, the introduction and the section “Moving beyond the deficit model” may provide insight for scientists seeking to move past the deficit model.

10. Spiegelhalter, David. “Risk and Uncertainty Communication”. Annual Review of Statistics Applied, 2017.

cannot recommend this article enough if you want a good introduction to how to present risk and uncertainty. In particular, the discussion of how to visually present numbers to enhance your audience’s understanding of risk was fascinating. I didn’t have time to incorporate any visual displays of uncertainty in my demo, but if I ever do I’ll start by looking back at this paper.

11. Oreskes, Naomi. Merchants of Doubt : How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press, 2011.

I recommend this book to anyone who has ever done research. Merchants of Doubt is a detailed look at how large industries have used scientific uncertainty (the sort of uncertainty that comes from experiments) to extend debates on controversial topics long after scientific consensus has been reached. It is a testament to this book’s influence that I have been assigned chapters from it in three separate classes in my program.

 

12. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Again, another book I recommend to all scientists. This book discusses how transformative theories in science (think Einstein’s general relativity) may emerge in a research culture that, Kuhn argues, is relatively resistant to change. Even if you don’t agree with all the claims made (my opinions of this work change daily), it is a thought-provoking book that will ask you to examine your preconceived notions of science research.