Australian context

Given that the practice examined in this thesis is based in Australia, it is important to describe the Australian science communication context. This context explains how the

national audit of science engagement activities arose, which is the first practice case to be examined (see Chapter 3). It also provides context for the other two practice cases, which focus on climate change science, which is publicly controversial in Australia.

1.6.1 Australian science communication focused on practicalities

From the very beginning, science communication in Australia has been rooted in the practicalities. The demands of establishing a society in the 1800s in an environment often hostile to European approaches to farming and environmental management shaped the science that needed to be done and hence its discourse. These practical beginnings continued with initiatives during the first and second World Wars, and then afterwards to rebuild the nation (Burns, 2014). Scientists understood that their work to rebuild the nation was ‘unlikely to attract public money unless the general public understood it’ (Burns, 2014, p. 73). This focus on practicalities still bears influence today with the emergence of the “science communicator” professional in the early 1990s. Such a professional was most often employed by the CSIRO mostly to assist scientists to communicate with farmers or government management agencies.

1.6.2 Professionalisation of science communication

In 1994, Australian Science Communicators (ASC) was formed. This was an important milestone in the formalisation of the term ‘science communicator’ and the emergence of a new profession. Until that time people involved in science communication had a wide variety of titles and came from a diversity of educational and disciplinary backgrounds. They tended to operate in a professional vacuum and play a subservient and largely unrecognised role (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2012). Three years after ASC was

established, Australia’s first National Science Week was held, and became the focus for many science communication activities, including those recorded in the 2012 national

audit (see Chapter 3).

Universities in Australia offered courses in science communication prior to ASC’s establishment but they were fragmented and often short-lived. The gradual emergence of the new science communicator profession gave energy and purpose to a number of universities. For example, the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science was set up at the Australian National University (ANU) in 1996 to “empower

Australians by encouraging in them a confident ‘ownership’ of modern science,

increasing science awareness in the community and improving the communication skills of scientists” (Burns, 2014, p. 75). New units were formed, new courses written, and a training framework established. The need for research followed. Post-graduate

qualifications in science communication by coursework and research became well- established at three universities: ANU, University of Queensland, and the University of Western Australia (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2012). However, due to changes in

personnel in the past few years, science communication courses at the University of Queensland and the University of Western Australia have ceased or reduced in their scope.

During the growth of training and research programs there appeared to be a marked a shift in the ideological approach to science communication. During the 1990s, science communicators focused on one-way communication via formal education, the media, publications, lectures and static museum displays. This focus probably reflected the professional backgrounds of most science communicators as editors, journalists, teachers and librarians. However, with the professionalisation of science communication through university courses and the growth of science

communication careers there appeared to be a shift in science communication practice towards attempts to more actively ‘engage’ the public (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2012;

Stocklmayer, 2013). However, whether this shift was real or rhetorical has not been fully examined. My analysis of the 2012 national audit of science engagement activities (see Chapter 3) provides some insight into this question.

Today, it is common-place for Australian research and government

organisations to advertise ‘science communicator’ positions and there is now a rich diversity of science communicators in Australia, ranging from those working for research organisations like CSIRO to those working in thriving private consultancy businesses. More than 500 communicators attended ASC’s national conference in February 2014, which also celebrated ASC’s 20th _anniversary.

1.6.3 Government support for science communication

Australia’s first national government program to support science communication, the Science and Technology Awareness Program (STAP), followed the release of a report prepared by The Royal Society in the UK in 1985. This report, which became known as the ‘Bodmer Report’ after the name of its Chair (Dr W.F. Bodmer), influenced science communication globally. It recommended actions for scientists, educators, the media, industry, government and museums, aiming to increase overall awareness of science and the way it pervades modern life:

Science and technology play a major role in most aspects of our daily lives both at home and at work. Our industry and thus our national prosperity depend on them. Almost all public policy issues have scientific or technological implications. Everybody, therefore, needs some understanding of science, its accomplishments and its limitations. (The Royal Society, 1985, p. 6)

The influence the Bodmer Report had on Australian science communication policy are typical of those that UK institutions have had globally on science communication: “Initiatives in this area, particularly institutional programmes in the public

understanding of science, have frequently become exemplars for other countries when developing their own” (Lock, 2011, p.18).

STAP was Australia’s first national science communication program. Created in 1989, it had seven staff and a budget in 1991-2 of $AU0.7 million, rising to $AU1.7 million in 1992-93 (10 cents per head of the population of Australia). These were modest resources given its ambitious aims:

The Government's Science and Technology Awareness Program aims to increase public awareness of the central role that science and technology play in national life, including economic and social development. The contribution of science and technology to industry, and the contribution of our manufacturing and services industries to national development, are not widely recognised by Australians. This lack of recognition appears to be one reason for the reluctance of Australians to adopt new technologies and innovative practices in the workplace. (Australian Government, 1992, p. 4)

STAP’s five target groups were young people and their teachers; women; industry and business leaders; scientists; and journalists. Over a decade and a half, successive governments tinkered with the program, not satisfied it was making much of a difference. The Australian community was not engaged, student numbers in science were falling, and investment in research by industry was among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which was of concern to some Australian policy makers (Australian Government, 1992).

In response to the perceived need to better engage the public, the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Science Research and Tertiary Education commissioned the Inspiring Australia strategy (Australian Government, February 2010), which aimed to deliver a “coordinated national approach to science communication… for a more scientifically engaged Australia” p. xvii). The strategy defines “a scientifically engaged Australia” as “a society that is inspired by and values

scientific endeavour, that attracts increasing national and international interest in its science, that critically engages with key scientific issues and that encourages young people to pursue scientific studies and careers” (p. 2-3). These four descriptors of an engaged society are also the basis for the four desired outcomes of the Inspiring Australia strategy.

The strategy (Australian Government, 2010) included 15 recommendations, the last of which recommended research such as “baseline and longitudinal, attitudinal and behavioural studies, activity audits, program evaluations and impact assessments” (p. xx). The purpose of this research was to develop the “strategic research and evaluation capability to design, target and review effective science engagement activities and to guide future investment” (p. xx). The 2012 audit of science engagement activities studied in Chapter 3 of this thesis delivered one of these research outcomes.