Abstract
The strength of science communication in Australia has until now been in practice rather than theory, driven by a demand for practical solutions to problems. Science communicators are resourceful in devising solutions, either adapting international experience to suit local circumstances or inventing their own. The theoretical study of science communication in Australia has been slower to develop. Only recently has Australia recognized that many science-based issues require a more considered approach, in which practical actions are governed by a deeper theoretical understanding. Prior to 1990, the limited number of university departments researching science communication-related issues worked principally from a social sciences perspective. Based in units with names such as ‘History and Philosophy of Science’, they had little to do with practitioners in science communication. The practitioners usually worked for research organizations, science centers and museums, and came from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds. They performed a range of tasks and the titles of their positions varied widely. There were no established training programs, and the role of ‘science communicator’ was only beginning to be defined. Dialog between theoreticians and practitioners was virtually non-existent. Since the 1990s, the practice of science communication has become more professional through the development of Australian Science Communicators, the consolidation of three centers for training science communicators, and an increase in academic research into science communication. Academic research into science communication currently takes a mostly multidisciplinary approach and has moved away from a deficit model focus to one that is more participatory. This may at least partly explain the closer links emerging between researchers and practitioners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The objective of the typical mechanics institute was ‘the diffusion of scientific, literary and other useful knowledge among its members and the community generally and particularly among the young as well as the operative classes.’ R.W.E. Wilmot, quoted in Home (1989).
- 2.
- 3.
N. Longnecker, Science Communication Program Coordinator, Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences, University of Western Australia, pers. comm., 2010.
- 4.
R. Lamberts, Deputy Director, Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, pers. comm., 2010.
- 5.
J. Leach, Senior Lecturer in Rhetoric and Science Communication, University of Queensland, pers. comm., 2011.
References
Almany, G. R., Hamilton, R. J., Williamson, D. H., Evans, R. D., Jones, G. P., Matawai, M., Potoku, T., Rhodes, K. L., Russ, G. R., & Sawynok, B. (2010). Research partnerships with local communities: Two case studies from Papua New Guinea and Australia. Coral Reefs, 29, 567–576.
ANU (Australian National University). (2011). Bachelor of Science (Science Communication). Retrieved April 2011, from http://studyat.anu.edu.au/programs/3602XBSCM;overview.html
Dunlop, M., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Something to talk about: Affective responses to public health mass media campaigns and behaviour change. Journal of Health & Mass Communication, 1(3/4), 211.
Home, R. W. (Ed.). (1989). Australian science in the making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ko, H. C. H. (2010). The public production and sharing of medical information: An Australian perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 09(01), 1–10.
Metcalfe, J., & Riedlinger, M. (2009). Identifying and testing engagement and public literacy: Indicators for river health. Science, Technology & Society, 14(2), 241–267.
Monash University. Retrieved April 2011, from http://monash.edu/pubs/handbooks/courses/2130.html
Mulder, H. A., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. S. (2008). The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30, 277–287.
University of Melbourne. (2011). School of historical and philosophical studies, history and philosophy of science, about us. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://hps.unimelb.edu.au/about/
University of Queensland. (2011). Master of communication. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.uq.edu.au/study/program.html?acad_prog=5334
University of Wisconsin–Madison. The directory of science communication courses and programs. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://dsc.journalism.wisc.edu/allEntries.php
UWA (University of Western Australia). (2011). Bachelor of science (Science communication). Retrieved from http://courses.handbooks.uwa.edu.au/courses/c5/5011.27
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A
Appendix A
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Metcalfe, J., Gascoigne, T. (2012). The Evolution of Science Communication Research in Australia. In: Schiele, B., Claessens, M., Shi, S. (eds) Science Communication in the World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4278-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4279-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)