Have you ever considered researching corporate misbehaviour?
I hadn’t either until October when, just after I had started
my MSc, a placement opportunity came through the Science Communication Unit and
landed in my email inbox. It was asking for applicants with attention to
detail, good writing ability, an enquiring mind, and an interest in public
health or social policy.
I was interested so I applied and that is how I ended up
walking, getting the train, and jumping on a bus to get to Bath and back on some
of the coldest and darkest days in January.
I spent a week with the Tobacco Control Research Group at the
University of Bath. The placement and training course supported the work of the
team of academics and journalists who produce the Tobacco Tactics website. This investigates and
publishes on the activities of international tobacco companies and their
We spent the first two days hearing from academic
members of the research group and guest speakers as well as getting acquainted
with the research topics. We participated in lectures on topics such as writing
for different audiences, investigative techniques and freedom of information
requests. By Wednesday we were ready for practical sessions. In groups we spent
three days working on different topics, researching and writing up our
findings. We worked hard!
Each day we also heard from PhD students. They presented
their research topics which included corporate influence on science; illicit
trade; and social media monitoring. These lunchtime talks were interesting and
I particularly enjoyed learning about digital methods such as collecting and
analysing Twitter data.
Working with students from undergraduate and postgraduate courses at
Bath, UWE Bristol and Gloucester universities was really valuable as we were
able to share our wide range of interests and experiences to learn from and
collaborate with each other during the placement.
Throughout the week I had many moments where I linked what I was
learning on placement to what I was learning in my MSc, to my previous studies,
and to experiences I have had in different job roles. This was rewarding and
motivating whilst I am studying and thinking about my future career plans.
Because of the industry the group researches, in order to undertake the
placement we had to sign a conflict of interest form and our conversations and
work were kept on a secure network which is required for this area of public
The number of people writing, tweeting, instagramming, blogging, podcasting, vlogging about all things science is unfathomably large. Then there’s the universities, the charities, the businesses and so on who are adding to the mix. It’s no wonder then that the online science communication terrain isn’t mapped. We know it’s out there, yet exactly who is doing what, where and how is something we only have snapshots of information about. Yet mapping this vast terrain is exactly what we’ve been trying to do within the Science Communication Unit as part of our work on the European Commission-funded RETHINK project .
The RETHINK project involves 10 institutions across Europe including VU Amsterdam and Ecsite, the European network of science centres. Together, we’re trying to explore how science is communicated online so we can see what’s working well and understand more about what’s going wrong when it’s not, such as the audiences that aren’t being reached. To start this process, we needed a better view of the online science communication terrain in terms of who is doing the communicating, the platforms they are using and the forms their communication takes.
Given the terrain’s scale, we decided to set some
boundaries to our exploration. Firstly, in conjunction with the other RETHINK project
partners, we decided to concentrate our mapping efforts on three topic areas –
climate change, artificial intelligence and healthy diets. These topics were
selected because they are important to all our lives. But they also represent
very different online habitats; with different individuals and organisations
doing the communicating and very diverse subject matter. It means we get a
richer insight into how varied the online science communication landscape is.
Secondly, we limited the number of each type of
communicator we would map to 10. So, for example, once we had found 10
universities communicating about climate change, we would stop. Otherwise the
mapping would have been an insurmountable task. After all, what we were really
aiming to do was to explore the different types of communicator as well as the
forms of communication they are involved with. We were mapping the extent of
the terrain – how far it reached and what was there – rather than trying to
measure the peak of each mountain; the number of specific types of organisation
or individual communicating about each topic.
To get an even better view of the terrain, the
mapping was carried out by RETHINK team members in seven countries across
Europe – Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Serbia as well as
the UK. Each country chose two of the three topics they were going to map. Again,
to make the exploration more manageable.
To make sure we could compare the online science
communication terrains in different countries, the exploration needed to be
carried out in exactly the same way in each country. So Elena Milani, a Research Fellow within the
Science Communication Unit, developed a ‘mapping protocol’ – a set of
instructions for researchers in each country to follow when they were exploring.
So what did we find? Well, across the seven
countries, 697 different individuals and organisations that communicate climate
change, artificial intelligence and healthy diets were identified. Digging into
the data in a little more detail provides some interesting insights, including:
Climate change has the widest range of individuals
and organisations communicating about it online of the three topics. In other
words, it has a particularly rich communication environment.
The online science communication landscape is
complex – there are large differences in the types of communicators, the
platforms used and content shared between science-related subjects.
With all three topics, many of the sources of
information are not traditional experts, such as scientists or health
practitioners. Nor are they traditional mediators of information, such as
journalists. There are lots of alternative sources of information, such as
non-professional communicators and support communities.
But this is just the start. Having a clearer view
of the landscape thanks to our mapping will help with the next stages of
RETHINK, such as understanding the connections formed by communicators with
There are around 5,000 former metal mines in England and Wales, and many hundreds of thousands globally. Many of these mines have a legacy of highly polluted wastes, which can pose a risk to water quality and human health. As metal supplies diminish and new sources of metals are needed, especially for use in smart technologies, the potential to extract metals from these mine wastes is being examined. However, they often support important habitats and species assemblages, or are important for their historical significance. For example, around 20% of former metal mines are associated with Sites of Special Scientific Interest, around 14% are protected by European designations including in the lead mining areas in the Pennines and North Wales, and the tin-copper mines of Cornwall. Around 15% of former metal mines in England are in a World Heritage Site including the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape (Sinnett, 2018).
Much of the research and policy concerned with the management of abandoned mine wastes is focussed on environmental protection, landscape quality and the need to balance this with the conservation of nature and, to a lesser extent, heritage. In recent years there have also be a number of studies examining the motivation and preferences of those visiting restored mineral extraction sites.
However, there has been very little research on how local residents value their mining heritage and their preferences for its long-term management. This is important as it is ultimately local people who are affected by both the positive and negative impacts of this legacy, as well as any changes to the status quo. It is also essential to ensure that local people are supportive of any plans for the management of the sites. Understanding their preferences and concerns can inform this process.
We undertook some research with residents of former mining areas to address this gap in our understanding. Specifically, we explored the following questions: how do those living in former metal mining landscapes value them in terms of aesthetic appearance, role in preserving cultural heritage, nature conservation and tourism? What are the preferred options for managing abandoned metal mines?
We used the Q Method to examine the preferences of those living in six areas of metal mining in England and Wales. Q Method allows participants to ‘sort’ a series of statements based on the degree to which the statement represents their perspective on a subject. We selected a set of statements from the academic literature, policy and articles in local press. They covered a range of opinions and options on the mining legacy and its management.
Our analysis revealed five perspectives:
Preservationists want to maintain the status quo, and recognise the value of the mining landscape for its industrial heritage and nature conservation. They want former mine sites to be left alone, and protected, primarily for their heritage value.
Environmentalists are more motivated by water quality and pollution mitigation. They feel that that mine wastes would benefit from vegetation establishment and recognise their contribution to nature conservation. They value the role of experts.
Industry supporters prioritise the local economy and are the most supportive of mineral extraction in general and the reworking of mine wastes, feeling that it would create jobs and bring in new people.
Nature enthusiasts prioritise vegetation establishment on mine sites. They recognise the contribution mine sites make, or could make, to nature conservation. They want to see the sites restored, feeling they should not be left as they are.
Landscape lovers are focussed on improving the aesthetic appearance of the mine wastes. They are most concerned with the impact of mines on the landscape, but are open to the idea of reworking the mines to aid the local economy.
There were also several areas of agreement:
All residents prioritised water quality to some degree, with environmentalists and landscape lovers in particular feeling very strongly that this should take precedence over heritage features and nature conservation.
They also felt that the preference of the people living locally should take be a priority in deciding the future of the post-mining landscape, with most disagreeing that the future management of mine waste should be expert-led.
In summary, we found that most residents view their mining heritage positively for the cultural and ecological benefits that it provides, but they are concerned about the adverse impact on water quality and the lack of vegetation on many sites. There may be some support for metal recovery from abandoned mines if it is combined with high quality restoration that mitigates water pollution and revegetates the sites, whilst preserving their cultural heritage. Residents must be part of the process – too many feel that landscape decisions are taken out of the hands of local communities and do not benefit them.
Sinnett, D. (2019) Going to waste? The potential impacts on nature conservation and cultural heritage from resource recovery on former mineral extraction sites in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(7), 1227-1248. Available from https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/852458.
On 21st June UWE Bristol welcomed over 100 science-communication practitioners from the South West, the culmination of over five months of planning, organising and orchestrating, with a small team of five women at the helm. All throughout, attention was given to making the event inclusive. These are some of our learnings…
We made time at the beginning to think through what might
exclude people from our conference, and make adjustments to include them. We
pooled our knowledge from events we’d attended, and looked at what others had
been saying on blogs,
online guides (here
We chose the Business School for its facilities and
location; it is fully equipped with gender neutral toilets, seating areas with
high backs for privacy/quiet and, thanks to a recent student campaign, free
sanitary products in toilets. Outdoors, there is ample disabled parking and
inside there are wheelchair-accessible lifts. It’s the little things that
really make a difference when aiming to be inclusive; for most people, it is
relatively easy to get to by public transport.
Think about the room
Round tables, lots of
natural light, and a relatively easy-to-use AV system, as standard in most of
the rooms, made for a pleasant and relaxed setting for both the speakers and
delegates. In more interactive sessions, ‘think-pair-share’ was
used to allow everyone to participate in discussions. In future events we’d additionally
invite questions during discussions from groups that may not have had the floor
(e.g. young female, or BME).
We designated one room as a quiet zone, in case people
needed time out from social interaction. It ended up being used as a rehearsal
space, but such a room has been successful at other events.
Are there other perspectives we’re not including? Keep reflecting on this. It was identified early on that our suggested panel didn’t have a community representative, so we made contact with someone known locally for their grassroots activism. We did a similar exercise for the presenters once our call for proposals was announced – it’s okay to invite in people from marginalised groups; they’re often interested in getting involved and are a valuable source of information .
We had someone to coordinate the whole event, someone to
manage the registrations and social media, someone to recruit and manage
volunteers and managers to invite panellists and compere the day. Divide up
tasks and seek volunteer help (e.g. from students) to lighten the load and
allow you to support more people on the day. Several volunteers wore
identifiable shirts so people knew they could approach them if they were lost
or had any questions.
One barrier to participation is financial constraint, so we
offered bursary places.. Offering to pay for transport or to cover the cost of
childcare was another option.
We made sure our ticket price was kept low, at £25 for
concessions and £50 full-price, with early-bird options also. Many commented on
how fair our costing was and that it enabled them to attend.
Check your language
You’d be surprised how easily jargon or images can put off
your target audience. If the public’s only picture of the event is of white men
in a room, then that is what they’ll expect and might feel “I don’t belong here”.
Similarly, if the event includes or is for “experts” then the rest of us feel
like “non-experts”, which can be interpreted as “lacking in sufficient
knowledge”. We were careful to avoid these traps… and it is such a common
problem that one of our sessions at the conference was all about the use of
such language in public engagement.
To indicate that we would not tolerate harassment at the
conference, we included a Code of Conduct in our programme. Several people
commented that they really appreciated this extra effort!
Let people identify
We’ve been to several
events before where people get to design their own name badges, so we followed
suit. It breaks the ice, is low cost and is fun! But on a deeper level,
people’s identity is important to them. Let them define it!
Stay refreshed and
come up for air
Breaks facilitate networking and problem-solving, and allow
people time to digest what they have heard – so have lots of them! We had three
refreshment breaks, if you include lunch, with additional coffee and teas at
registration and an optional alcoholic and soft drinks reception at the end.
Food was vegan as standard, with gluten free options available – this was a
health and environmental choice. We worked with our caterers to offer oat milk,
as it is more sustainable and popular than their usual soy/almond alternative,
and to reduce single-use plastics. We knew our audience would appreciate this
and we asked them in the registration survey what they required..
During lunch, the site’s Grounds Manager led a nature walk so
people could stretch their legs and unwind from what can often be an
overwhelming morning of knowledge harvesting. We tied in what we were
discussing inside with the outdoor stroll by highlighting what UWE is doing to
improve biodiversity in the city and engage students to become ecosystem
stewards. Many people commented that the walk was their highlight!
Remember this is an
Capture photos, videos, blogs, demographic data and people’s
thoughts and feelings about how the conference went to make things better next
time. But do remember to ask people’s permission first!
The adage ‘you can’t please everyone’ is worth remembering
when designing events and conferences because, let’s face it, we all have
different needs and preferences. However, we can strive to make events as inclusive
as possible within our given constraints, so there is no excuse for not trying!
Here are just a few questions you could ask yourself in the
planning of your next event. Add to and refine the list after each event you
Does your team reflect the diversity you want to
see at the conference?
Does the panel represent the diversity you want
Have you reached out to under-served communities
and asked them why they may not attend? (e.g. could hiring a translator or
interpreter take away language barriers?)
Is your language in plain English, without
jargon or exclusionary terms? Not sure? Ask your intended audience.
Have you offered bursary places?
Is your cost affordable to as many people as
Have you asked about access and dietary
requirements and permissions (e.g. for photos, recordings, etc.) upon
Is the venue easily accessible by public
Does it have the technology you require? (e.g.
hearing loop, wifi)
Is there space to move around, walk around the
building safely and places to rest?
Is the venue breastfeeding friendly?
Are there disabled and non-binary toilets
available? Do the toilets have freely available sanitary products?
Have you advertised to multiple groups through
mediums that suit them (e.g. flyers in local community centres; speaking at a
local event; sharing event through mailing lists and newsletters)?
Are you sure the event does not clash with a
religious festival, national holiday or other important event?
If the event is held in the evening will people
need support with childcare?
Do you have a code of conduct?
Will there be food and beverages that can cater
to most needs? (Suggest ‘bring a dish’ or ‘bring your own’ if needed).
Is there a mixture of styles of sessions and
content to attract a wide audience?
If you have worked your way through this extensive but not
exhaustive list, the how should fall into place. Keep things fun and light and
be open to feedback.
What language can we use to create inclusive environments in
science communication? How might letting go of expert knowledge benefit underserved
audiences? Delegates attending the Sci Comm South West 2019 conference at UWE
Bristol were asked to crowdsource solutions to these issues at the ‘Letting go
of what is not serving us’ session. Both questions generated animated group
discussions resulting in several potential solutions.
What is in a word?
Kate Baker and Silvia Bortoli, University of Exeter
Science communicators have learned the hard way that
labelling groups of people is difficult and, more often than not, inaccurate. Language
can be very powerful in setting the scene and defining the foundations of
relationships, particularly when carrying out research.
During this first part of the session, participants were
asked to consider the word ‘non-academic’.
A seemingly innocuous word which is actually quite value-laden. It hides the
expertise that exists outside universities and research centres and highlights
what people ‘are not’ rather than the skills and knowledge that they may have.
It has the potential to alienate.
So what advice did our science communicators have?
There was an overall recognition that the term ‘academic’ is
problematic, with a suggestion that should be replaced with ‘researcher’ as
this is more active and more accurately describes what they do. Some suggested
alternatives for ‘non-academic’ were:
Community – this could represent a large or
small group of people, including those online
Contributor – this is a more active term,
showing that they are not passive recipients
Collaborator – although this is seen as being
neutral and actively involved it may suggest a level of participation which is
Stakeholder – this is seen as active, but may be
more suitable for a community group or charity
Partner – this may be more suitable for an
organisation rather than an individual.
It was generally agreed that it is important not to call a
group by what they cannot do or what they are not, but rather identify what
they can do or what they are. The overall advice suggested asking the group
what they would like to be called as early on in the process as possible and
sticking with it.
Stengler, SUNY Oneonta, New York
As science communicators we are acutely aware of the
importance of knowing your audience. When developing public engagement or
outreach programmes, science communicators may be asked to liaise between
scientists and organisations who work closely with the audience. These
organisations can include charities, schools and community groups. In these
cases it is important to recognise that specialist organisations know their
audiences extremely well and are often best placed to tailor a public
engagement activity. Scientists and researchers are often reluctant to allow
individuals and organisations, with little or no prior knowledge of the science,
to plan or deliver the public engagement activity.
In light of this issue the second part of the session asked:
How can we help scientists let go of
their science and allow experts in the audience to run an outreach or public
So what are the top tips from Sci Comm South West delegates?
Identify any concerns the scientists may have early
on in the project
Clearly define the role of the scientists in the
Make sure priorities are understood between the scientist
and audience expert groups
Co-develop the project, with the experts in
science planning with the experts in audience
Make sure everyone understands why they are
collaborating and where the various expertise lies
Provide training to enable transition to take
place smoothly between the experts in science and the experts in audience
Develop longer term relationships between the
scientist and audience experts.
Alongside these recommendations, all delegate groups
recognised the importance of trust between scientists and audience experts, and
that the best way to achieve this was though collaboration and building
word we should learn to say loudly and clearly, without embarrassment: funding.
As an early career researcher and communicator, I often come across requests
for funding ‘help’. What can I do to manage my colleagues’ expectations and
negotiate the best rates for my work?
In the Sci
Comm South West workshop ‘Funding, funding everywhere’, Rae Hoole shared some
insights on securing finance. Science communicators, especially if freelance,
often wait to hear from schools, universities and councils who are in a
position to offer available work. However, is there anything we could do to
become more proactive and turn our ‘gigs’ into a conscious career choice?
commenced the workshop by telling the story of her career. With a background in
theatre, Rae managed to carve herself a niche as a director of a creative
learning company, Links to a Life, which combines physics education
with play and storytelling.
the first tip: it is challenging to bid
for funding as an individual! A much better way is to approach potential
partners or funders as a charity or a company (it’s not that hard to set one
up!). This will provide weight to your application and help you come across as the
amazing and experienced practitioner you are!
Second, discuss your potential project early on
so your application looks less like an accidental brainstorm and more like a
streamlined and deliverable idea. Clarity of your aims and impacts is
essential. You need to be able to evidence
who will benefit and how: have you got an evaluation strategy and measures
in place? Once you have developed a partnership, perhaps it’s worth to keep an
idea bank of potential projects ready to be turned into bids once funding calls
are open. This goes to show the importance of ongoing nurturing of networks you
establish at conferences like this one.
coming back to the F-word. The skill of
discussing rates is essential. First of all, I wish we didn’t have to put
up with this power dynamic and expectations that science communication or
freelance work is free – but hey ho – we live in a society. However, I
genuinely believe that collectively we have the power to shape this community
of practice. Every interaction we have – whether with a junior colleague, a
high school pupil or a potential funder – influences societal norms about the
value of science communication labour.
Meanwhile, one of the workshop participants shared with me how she measures her daily rate.
“You need to take the annual salary you aspire to and divide it by 100. That’s your daily rate. The overheads cover your admin, sick leave and pension. We don’t automatically get it as freelancers, yet we still have to take care of all the above!”.
are your experiences of bidding and negotiating salary? Do you ever work ‘for
exposure’? Share your views in comments!
On 21st June, UWE Bristol’s Science Communication Unit welcomed over 100 delegates to X Block on UWE Bristol’s Frenchay campus to celebrate regional ‘sci comm’ talent and debate how researchers and practitioners can harness this resource to begin addressing today’s most pressing societal, economic and planetary challenges.
a warm welcome from Professor Olena Doran, the key note speaker, Dr Carla
Almeida offered insights into the challenges of communicating science and
health related issues in the Favela surrounding the Museum
of Life in Rio De Janeiro, her home city in Brazil. She spoke passionately of
how the Museum is reaching out to the local community, training students from
the local area as science communicators and raising their aspirations. These
students help to break down barriers between favelas and Foundation Oswaldo
Cruz in which the Museum is located. The Museum also takes part in the annual
Carnival which draws in the community. At the heart of what they do is a
mission to foster a two-way dialogue with local people so they can begin to
address some of the socio-environmental and health related issues facing the
community of which they are a part.
parallel sessions throughout the day built on this theme, including With Whom Do You Communicate? A sessionthat introduced two novel projects (Black2Nature and STFC’s The Wonder Initiative) that aim to widen participation in science,
technology and nature conservation; and Letting
Go of What’s Not Serving Us, which crowdsourced solutions to the
difficulties of using academic language when trying to engage with local
Talking of academic
language, in a joint interactive session between James Nobles (NIHR
CLAHRC West), Zoe Banks Gross (Knowle West
Media Centre) and Malcolm Hamilton (Mufti
Games) gave delegates a chance let go (and bin) the
jargon that wasn’t serving them, an exercise they play with low socio-economic
status residents across Bristol to get them moving and to discuss how
effectively physical activity guidelines are communicated.
The voices and perspectives on the day were truly diverse, as were the types of sessions and activities on offer. You could have chosen to play Periodic Table Top Trumps or taken part in a decision-making simulation run by Ruth Larbey of the Science Communication Unit, while during lunch there was opportunity to explore UWE grounds with a guided nature walk by Richie Fleuster and discover what’s being done to improve biodiversity across our campuses. The day ended with a keynote from speakers representing Eden Project, I’m A Scientist, We The Curious and The Natural History Consortium, among others. During the drinks reception storyteller Dawn Ellis seamlessly wove in highlights from the day into a tale about ninja’s from the West Country on a mission to save the world.
The conference was so
well received that we are already being asked when we will host the next one,
and believe this event has successfully reminded people of the role of the
Science Communication Unit regionally, nationally, and internationally.
Over the coming weeks we will be sharing articles
on our blog about the event, including one on how to design inclusive
We’re looking forward to the next one already!
Sophie Laggan, Project Coordinator: Sci Comm South West Conference 2019
It was about six months into my research fellowship when it
dawned on me that my real fascination was research itself and the stories it
generated, rather than the nitty gritty of samples in the lab.
I was returning to research on a Daphne Jackson Fellowship after a career break from environmental science and I thought I was really keen start learning again in a new research area. Except, I found I wanted to learn about other researchers findings just as much as my own. The more I learned the more I wanted to tell others and a future as a science communicator beckoned. Plan B hatched and I spent a few mad months doing part-time research and commuting from Yorkshire to do the Postgraduate Certificate in Practical Science Communication at UWE Bristol.
The Science in Public Spaces module was the perfect springboard for my first Sci Comm role in the Public Engagement team at the University of Leeds, which I got three months into the PG Cert course. Part of the job was co-organising our family-friendly research showcase, Be Curious, along- side developing training workshops and advice for academics wanting to develop their public engagement skills. The sessions on how to develop creative, effective evaluation of events were immediately useful, as this is one of the main things that researchers need to demonstrate the impact of all their engagement activity, but often don’t know how to do effectively. Considering the needs, interests and language of each audience is another skill emphasised throughout the course, which has been invaluable to pass on when training academics.
As a scientist, I never thought I would have ‘marketing’ in
the title of my job. Public engagement was fun, but a step removed from the
research stories that had tempted me into science communication. My real love
on the UWE Bristol course was with the science writing and so when a research
communication role in the marketing team covering the faculties of science,
engineering and environment came up at the University, I jumped at it.
My insider’s knowledge of the academic research world, coupled with science communication skills were the unusual combination needed for a job which promotes the research strengths of the faculties to audiences as diverse as industrial collaborators, research funders, policy makers and prospective PhD students. Under the title of Research Marketing Manager it’s my job to work with academic leaders to make sure that case studies, videos and spotlight pieces reflecting the research strengths of the schools are reflected on university website content and other channels. The science writing skills developed on the PG Cert are in constant use and the knowledge gained about press teams, journalists and social media have all helped me.
The role is new to the university and will continue to evolve beyond our own online channels as the research landscape changes. I work closely with the media relations team and social media colleagues as we develop new ways to communicate the incredible variety of research here to the audiences who will be most interested in it.
Dr Clare Gee, PgCert in Practical Science Communication student at UWE Bristol 2016/17
Us south-western folk have much to be proud
of. From Cornwall’s glistening beaches
and Dartmoor’s breathtaking expanses, through to Bristol’s thriving cultural
scene and the gastronomic joys that are Somerset scrumpy and Cheddar cheese
(cave-aged and extra-mature, naturally).
And then, of course, we have our industrious
science communication sector.
We at the Science Communication Unit (SCU) believe the time is ripe to celebrate the south-west’s diverse science communication expertise. Thus, we are bringing together science communicators from across the region (and beyond) at the first ever Sci Comm South West conference, which takes place on 21st June 2019 at UWE Bristol.
These are some of the questions addressed by the day’s innovative mix of interactive workshops and presentations delivered by an eclectic set of science communicators from organisations including the Eden Project, We the Curious and theMet Office.
And just as science communication is not
limited to the south-west, nor are our guests. We are very excited to welcome Carla Almeida from Rio de Janeiro as
our keynote speaker. Carla will be sharing her experiences of how the Museum of
Life, an interactive science centre, has engaged with local, socially
vulnerable communities – to shape the identity of the museum itself.
The event has another important goal: to
catalyse a network of science communicators from the south-west. What might a SciCommSW network look like? Come take
part in discussions to help shape this new network for the region and ensure it
best serves the needs of its members.
We are planning a warm and welcoming day, which provides ample opportunity to learn, have fun and meet fellow science communicators. For further information, the programme (draft) and to register please go to our conference page.
When deciding where to study a Master’s degree, employability was a huge factor for me. I was keen to study somewhere that would teach me how to get stuck straight into the world of Science Communication. From day one in the Science Communication Unit (SCU) at UWE Bristol, we were treated like professionals and encouraged to present ourselves as so to the rest of the sci-comm community.
Since graduating, I have taken on regular freelance writing projects which have been a great way to practice the skills I learned at UWE Bristol. I have also recently started a full time job as a Science Writer for a small company in mid Wales who specialise in Cellular Pathology. My day job now includes writing articles for pathologists about new research and developing ideas to create multimedia content for our website.
I was already interested in Science Writing when I started the course so was grateful to learn a lot about this topic whilst studying and to meet several industry professionals. One of the key skills I am now using on a daily basis is learning how to filter through academic papers- as a communicator you may need to sort through huge quantities of research to fully understand an issue. I’ve also learned how to write more concisely. This really helps with sticking to word counts. My interview skills also developed very quickly on the course, something I’d never done before. I now use these skills to interview customers, researchers and colleagues both face to face and over the phone. Unsurprisingly, one of my favourite modules on the course was Writing Science and I still have the “Top Tips” we were given during the course and refer to them regularly for a refresher.
As much as I loved gaining the practical writing skills I now use in my full time job, I am also really glad I had the opportunity to learn more about the theory and history of the field as well. It has definitely broadened my horizons about more types of communication and how different media can be used to encourage science communication in a format accessible to everyone. Some of the other practical skills I gained through the course served to be valuable life lessons in team work, compromise and self-confidence. For example, I can proudly say I was part of a team to record an “as-live” radio show at the BBC- that’s a pretty memorable experience!
Finally, the teaching staff and my course mates from UWE Bristol have become invaluable sources of professional advice and encouragement as we all continue to support each other and celebrate our successes. Amongst my course mates we have shared a whole range of achievements including further study, international travel for fieldwork, BBC credits, conference attending and journal publication.