Broadening Perspectives on Broadening Participation: Professional Learning Tools for More Expansive and Equitable Science Communication

Bronwyn Bevan,Cecilia Garibay,Angela Calabrese Barton

doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.00052

Abstract

Many professionals in the field of science communication have argued that our work too often tends to be designed for people like ourselves—those already interested in, comfortable with, and engaged with science. Thus, our work, ostensibly intended to broaden who engages with STEM, may in fact be exacerbating rather than reducing disparities with regard to who has access to and makes use of designed (versus everyday) opportunities for science engagement. In this conceptual analysis, we posit that inclusive science communication must be conceptualized as a process of cultural exchange, rather than as a process of translation. Thus the goal is not to speak more simply or more loudly, but rather with more understanding and mutualism. We share the results of an exploratory project that developed a suite of research briefs designed to support science communication professionals in reflecting on key structural barriers that operate to institutionalize science as an non-inclusive domain of activity. We conclude that more dialogic ways of professional learning, among science educators, can reveal biases, gaps between goals and reality, and other underlying practices that must be addressed if we are to advance inclusive forms of science communication.

Highlights

The Matthew Effect describes the phenomenon whereby systems of reward and recognition lead to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer (Merton, 1968)
As such we explore how “boundary objects” codeveloped by professionals from across a range of perspectives, can be used to foster productive conversations about equity and inclusion in science communication, and to negotiate tensions that will inevitably arise as individuals, teams, and organizations seek to make change
Using purposive sampling (Babbie, 2014), we interviewed 30 experts in the field recognized for their work in informal STEM learning and science communication to surface critical issues and challenges regarding broadening participation and needs in the field

Summary

Introduction

The Matthew Effect describes the phenomenon whereby systems of reward and recognition lead to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer (Merton, 1968). In science the more well-established you are, the more often your studies are cited, even if they are not much different than the work of newer scientists or scholars. Feinstein and Meshoulam (2014) have argued that the work of science communication often triggers the Matthew Effect: We primarily engage those who seek engagement on our terms, on our turfs, in our language, and in ways that we ourselves find appealing or salient. The already science-engaged become even more science engaged. The authors note, we may, be exacerbating rather than ameliorating disparities with regard to who has access to and makes use of designed (vs. everyday) opportunities for science engagement

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion