• Claudia SchnuggEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities book series (PSBAH)


Many things can be understood as communication, and people who reflect on artscience collaboration and communication refer to a kaleidoscope of experiences of changed communication: communication in the sense of outreach or communication of contents from one group to another group of people has been a major argument for artscience collaboration for a long time. Already in the 1980s an inclusion of art in the communication of science and scientific outreach processes has been proposed and supported by official funding bodies (Sleigh and Craske 2017). Exploring artworks for communication to a broader public has been adopted by science museums (Gates-Stuart 2014) and, lately, it has become a part of public engagement processes (Bureaud 2018). Others talk about inclusion of art to foster communication through experience or different senses. At the same time, artists, scientists, and managers report an increase in their communication skills through developing new conversational techniques to talk to a broader public and different stakeholder groups and learn to create a visual framework for presenting their idea and use nonverbal expressions.


  1. Barry, D. (2005). The Play of the Mediate. In M. Brellochs & H. Schrat (Eds.), Product and Vision (pp. 57–77). Berlin: Kadmos.Google Scholar
  2. Bureaud, A. (2018). What’s Art Got to Do with It? Reflecting on BioArt and Ethics from the Experience of the Trust Me, I’m an Artist Project. Leonardo, 51(1), 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dumitriu, A. (2018). Trust Me, I’m an Artist: Building Opportunities for Art & Science Collaboration Through an Understanding of Ethics. Leonardo, 51(1), 83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gates-Stuart, E. (2014). Communicating Science: Explorations through Science and Art. Doctoral Dissertation, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science.Google Scholar
  5. Jones, C. A., & Galison, P. (1998). Picturing Science Producing Art. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Negrete, A., & Lartigue, C. (2010). The Science of Telling Stories: Evaluating Science Communication via Narratives (RIRC Method). Journal Media and Communication Studies, 2(4), 98–110.Google Scholar
  8. Negrete, A., & Rios, P. (2013). The Object of Art in Science: Science Communication via Art Installation. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), A04.Google Scholar
  9. O’Connor, G., & Stevens, C. (2015). Combined Art and Science as a Communication Pathway in a Primary School Setting: Paper and Ice. Journal of Science Communication, 14(4), A04.Google Scholar
  10. Osborne, O. J., Lin, S., Chang, C. H., et al. (2015). Organ-Specific and Size-Dependent Ag Nanoparticle Toxicity in Gills and Intestines of Adult Zebrafish. ACS Nano, 9(10), 9573–9584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Osborne, O. J., Lin, S., Jiang, W., et al. (2017). Differential Effect of Micron-Versus Nanoscale III–V Particulates and Ionic Species on the Zebrafish Gut. Environmental Science: Nano, 4(6), 1350–1364.Google Scholar
  12. Picardi, I., Balzano, E., Camurri, A., et al. (2016). Art for Science in Society: Theory, Practices and Technologies in Design Artistic-Scientific Works. Napoli: La scuola di Pitagora editrice.Google Scholar
  13. Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Sleigh, C., & Craske, S. (2017). Art and Science in the UK: A Brief History and Critical Reflection. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 42(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Star, S. L. (2010). This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  17. Weinberg, D. H. (2010). From the Big Bang to Island Universe: Anatomy of a Collaboration. Narrative. Retrieved from
  18. Zhao, H., Osborne, O. J., Lin, S., et al. (2016). Lanthanide Hydroxide Nanoparticles Induce Angiogenesis via ROS-Sensitive Signaling. Material Views, Small, 12, 32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WelsAustria

Personalised recommendations