I’ve been thinking about science communication again lately, which is not so surprising after the Big Science Communication Summit.
I’ve also been thinking that I really should be blogging more, and that I probably could produce more if I took some inspiration from my pal Sarah Keenihan and write shorter posts.
So here’s something I thought about on the bus home today …
I’m in science communication because I want to change the way someone thinks, and therefore, acts (I know that there may be more than one flaw in that line of thought). For me, it’s not about awareness or engagement, or even inspiration. I think lots of people need to act differently if the human race is not going to destroy itself and the planet. I also think that this is going to take a lot of time and if we are to have any chance of success we need to understand why they act the way they do now.
In #onsci tomorrow night we are talking about science communication myths. You know, things like “we need to just give people the facts” or “if only we did science communication better then we could fix everything”. These ideas still seem so pervasive in science communication in Australia, and I was musing on why while I staring out the window.
I’m ‘A’. I’m communicating with ‘B’ in the hope ‘B’ will do something different because of the information I’ve just given them.
‘B’ changes and this makes ‘A’ (me) feel pretty good because my focus is on MY activities.
I’m a science communicator and I just communicated some science. My focus is on me, radiating information.
But here’s ‘B’ …
Perhaps it’s time we really focused on ‘B’ a bit more, or at least shifted our gaze toward them from time to time?