Next Wednesday (April 27th) I’m kicking off a media140 gig in Brisbane (by Skype rather than in person sadly), exploring the impact of social technologies on science communication).
When I was originally asked, it seemed a great idea – a chance to pontificate on my vast knowledge of social media and science communication to vast crowds of adoring fans at one of the coolest events of they year. But sitting here in Frankfurt airport on the way back from another meeting, my delusions of grandeur are beginning to catch up with me – what the heck do I know about social media and science comms, and who would want to listen to me anyway?
OK so I admit I’m being a little paranoid here. After a number years of blogging and messing around on Twitter, I probably have something that someone will find interesting to say about social media and science communication. But as someone who practices science communication more than I study it, I still find myself bemused and not a little confused by the whole business at times.
Which is why I constantly find myself worrying about questions like:
- Is social media helping scientists reach a broad audience, or is it just adding to the noise on the web?
- Are science experts really connecting with people who might benefit from what we have to say, or are they simply coalescing into self-congratulatory cliques of like-minded individuals?
- Is social media truly transforming the dialogue around science and society, or is it just enabling an edutainment sideshow?
- Is the science community listening, responding to and learning from others through science media, or are we still predominantly in science-evangelism mode?
- And how on earth do you get people to comment on your science blog if your name is isn’t PZ Myers?
As you might guess, I do have some ideas on these and other questions. But as I put the finishing touches to the talk, I thought I should probably ask the experts for some additional insights – i.e. you!
So here, after an over-long pre-amble, is the question I wanted to ask: What excites you and what concerns you about using social media to communicate with and engaging people in science?
Answers on a metaphorical post card in the comments box below please.
And if you’re struggling to find the motivation to write something, just imagine my name is PZ Myers!
Thanks!
Related posts:
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Ha! The path to you does lead through PZ Myers. I first became acquainted with science blogs after contacting my friend, Matt Young, who posted information from a letter I wrote regarding problems in local public school science education on Panda’s Thumb: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/sixth-graders-d.html
What was just an incident played out in the context of local small town politics became one linked to issues of national interest.
Big plus: I became aware of the existence of the National Center for Science Education, and hosted a local meeting led by Dr. Peter Hess, who is from NCSE.
“You are not alone” is a very important concept.
Downside: This also led to a deluge of outsiders berating locals in online media without much thought as to impact or consequence. It was in efforts at doing some online damage control on this that I first posted on PZ’s blog as well as the blog of Chris Mooney. This ultimately led to me becoming aware of your existence.
In the space of my comment postcard, I will just answer “all of the above” to the questions and concerns you raise.
But, how could someone who is about to participate in a conference in Australia via Skype doubt that the world has changed?
Overall, I think these changes are quite good.
Thanks Gaythia – it is rather cool isn’t it that I get to talk to an audience half way round the world on social media and communication, using the web! (although I do like Brisbane – and Skype isn’t quite the same as being there).
I love the accessibility of social media for science discussions, and honestly, almost anything is more interesting than reading tweet after tweet about what someone had for breakfast. Science communication really doesn’t have that high of a bar to hurdle.
My main concern is that most subjects regarding science take actual thought. I know this doesn’t sound like a bad thing, but like many people I’m pretty busy. I find myself hitting the Instapaper ‘Read Later’ button on almost all science stories I come across, except for the BBC science headlines. They manage to condense research pretty well, even if much of the meaning is lost during the squeeze.
Taking time to think about science reading isn’t bad, but part of the allure of social media is its immediacy. So waiting until later that night doesn’t bode well for real-time communications.
Thanks Mike – the thinking bit bothers me also. But I console myself that there’s a lot more to communication than just the thinking part!
You already know my story – I thought I was going to start a consultancy that focused on nanotech and clean energy tech and now I work with authors instead. But I have to say that not only has my knowledge and awareness of science (and science communications) issues greatly increased since getting involved with social media, the fact that I’ve got quite a few science-ish followers can mean only one of two things: either scientists are very polite and therefore won’t unfollow someone they’ve already followed, or that this whole two-way, multi-disciplinary conversation thang that is social media actually works when you don’t treat it as a broadcast medium.
I think of it as moving into a large city. Of course by adding your voice to everything else that is going on, you add to the chatter around you. At the same time, consider the possibilities of establishing new connections with people you never met before. Or the possibility of reaching a large(r) audience, because it is easier to connect with people. Social media offers you the possibilities. Not everyone in a large city is a great communicator, or an opinion maker. But if you are, then the world is open to you…
(and I am not sure this picture differs much whether you talk about science communication, or stamp collecting or whatever…
Thanks Andrew I think you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I have often thought about your question “Are science experts really connecting with people who might benefit from what we have to say, or are they simply coalescing into self-congratulatory cliques of like-minded individuals?”
I think that few people would argue that a wider audience can easily be reached with social media but I would like to hear about more two-way conversations between science experts and non-science experts to be convinced that these are not just self-congratulatory cliques of like-minded individuals!
I would love a way to measure change that comes about as a direct result of these online networks communicating science. The challenge is how to first measure the effect and then how to filter that info to see how much of that effect is due to online social networks. If we could identify what and how to measure then we could tailor the ways we communicate to be most effective.
I think social media is much more efficient at decreasing scientific advancement. The medium is much more efficient in getting people to believe that vaccinations cause autism, that there is no global warming, that homeopathy actually does something, and the anti-scientific and anti-intellectual thinking of the world increases faster. People in science are definitely not using this media efficiently enough to counter the pseudoscience, the conspiracy theorists, and the deniers. I think this is because people with a scientific bent are thoughtful and don’t instantly respond, but the rest are reactionary and appeal to emotion. I think that there is this general idea out there that if something doesn’t fit in one’s “common sense” it is probably dangerous and is part of some conspiracy of others with nefarious purposes.
It might be somewhat useful for communication among scientists, but I think it more in the nature of background noise. It certainly isn’t the most efficient communication medium. There have always been “social networks” in science, and peer-review has proven to be the best filter so far of bad science. “Social media” in my view should be properly labeled “Antisocial media” in that it discourages actual social contact and encourages the superficial anonymous “engagement”.
I am not saying science shouldn’t be involved in social media, in fact just the opposite, but what is needed is people who can engage the average guy more effectively to counter the pseudoscience. Right now the battle is being lost. I will continue to do my small part, as should we all, but science needs good social marketing experts to help people stem the tide of ignorance. This is the problem in general with science through the ages, people in science tend not to be the best marketers.
Great question – I personally love the access I have to so many sources and the immediacy of an answer to most questions (its that immediate gratification that really turns my crank). I believe that social media does succeed in making science (and the of course the naysayers drivel too) more accessible to people who snored through Grade 11 biology or math. I read somewhere that the most often shared stories are ones of science so we must be tapping into an unspoken public desire.
I know there is crap out there messing up the rational messages too but I trust that people can sift through it – just as when printing allowed masses to read they had the choice to dismiss or embrace ideas presented in the new format.
What excites me etc…?
1. Disintermediation (now there’s a word I’ve not used recently)
I’m excited that self-publishing has given scientists and their audiences the chance to choose what to write and what to read. It allows anyone to become a communicator rather than those in control of established media outlets to choose. It gives so many scientists with a passion to talk about their work and careers that chance.
2. Participative Science
Social Media tools are allowing scientists to do things differently. We’re working on I’m a Scientist, Decipher My Data (http://data.imascientist.org.uk) to combine science engagement with low-cost data collection and analysis.
School students will get the chance to do real science by working with and engaging with scientists on serious academic projects.
Thanks everyone for your comments, and apologies that I haven’t been able to respond to each one. These are extremely helpful as I head toward giving the talk tonight (US time)
I’m excited that self-publishing has given scientists and their audiences the chance to choose what to write and what to read. It allows anyone to become a communicator rather than those in control of established media outlets to choose. It gives so many scientists with a passion to talk about their work and careers that chance.
Read more: http://2020science.org/2011/04/22/social-media-and-science-communication-the-new-renaissance-or-a-load-of-jackson-pollocks/#ixzz1SivcRJHD