Engaging an audience with scientific communication

"How do you communicate the relevance of science communication to a fellow public health person?" This was the opening line from the blog 'Public Health Science Communication 2.0' produced by @bjerglund. Her article entitled 'The challenge of communicating science communication' sparked a brief discussion on Twitter. For her response to comments and questions please read her follow up article here.

In her own words:

"Some of the things I feel will be important to communicate in a course on public health science communication are":

  1. Communication should be considered as an integrated element in the research process
  2. Communication can be beneficial to the research process.
  3. Communication is broader than explaining your research to a general public, but also involves communicating with fellow researchers, researches in the periphery of our area of our research and from completely different fields (actually public health has an advantage here, because we are by definition interdisciplinary and used to working with people with very different educational backgrounds)
  4. Communication is not equal to dissemination. Communication is two-way based – a with contributions and response from both sender and receiver.
  5. The person best equipped to know what is of relevance to communicate and to whom is the researcher him/herself.

As our opening #hcsmanz chat for 2012, we invite you to bring your ideas and critique to the practice of communicating science communication. We will discuss these five points listed above and the challenges and barriers to its implementation.

The 2012  weekly #hcsmanz chat will be held at the following times:

23:00NZDT (GMT+13:00) 
20:30ACDT (GMT+10:30) SA
20:00AEST (GMT+10:00) QLD
19:30ACST (GMT+09:30) NT
18:00AWST (GMT+08:00) WA

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

%d bloggers like this: