How can we exit our exclusive bubbles to make science communication more inclusive?
The last few years have exposed the value of increasing scientific literacy. The pandemic reminded scientists and science communicators how scientific thinking and knowledge can promote sound decision-making. The sudden explosion of AI tools tells us that people want—and need—to engage in technological discussions since these affect their lives. Climate discourse constantly reminds us of the urgent needs, especially for public participation and collective mobilization to change course effectively.
A lack of scientific literacy means exclusion from critical discussions that impact most. Still, the distribution of scientific knowledge reaches only a small part of society. As I’ve reported before, most consumers of scientific information belong to the scientific community, with only a minority of the population consuming science news.
We also know that the distribution of non-mediated science communication, such as public activities, open days at universities, and public lectures, mainly attracts the same demographic. The part of the public attending these events is predominantly white, belonging to a part of society that has high formal education and knowledge, and a vast interest in science.
Scientists and science communicators may feel that outreach programs reach everyone. But the reality tells a different story, with marginalized groups remaining outside the discussion due to how we structure and approach science outreach events.
Science communication researchers Drs. Christian Humm and Philipp Schrögel from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology addressed these issues in Frontiers in Communication. They wanted to know how scientists and organizations could reach underserved audiences to create a “communication relationship” and dialogue to, ultimately, engage these groups.
Through their research and external guidelines, they developed seven practical recommendations—arranged logically—that scientists and science communicators can use to reach underserved audiences.
The 7 recommendations for inclusive science communication
Humm and Schrögel combined a review of five existing reports and guidelines on inclusive science communication with original qualitative research conducted through their German project Science for All. The external reports, primarily from Austria and the UK, provided practical insights on reaching underserved groups. Humm and Schrögel’s research included interviews with 11 science communication practitioners and researchers, as well as focus groups and interviews with three groups of underserved audiences in Germany: Muslim youths with a migration background, residents of a marginalized urban neighborhood, and students in vocational training.
The article focuses on non-mediated forms of science communication to an external public, such as face-to-face events, public lectures, and citizen dialogues. It does not include mediated forms like science journalism or science education in schools.
#1 Know your audience
The audience’s needs come first. This point may seem obvious, but approaching science communication on feeling is more common than we think.
As science communicators and scientists, we may be tempted to see science projects through our own lenses, believing everyone finds our topics interesting and important. We may assume the audience’s needs based on stereotypes or feel we know that specific issues, such as AI or the climate, will benefit them.
These feeling-based beliefs may set us up for suboptimal outreach projects where our messages go over the people’s heads. Humm and Schrögel stress the importance of analyzing and learning about the audience’s current knowledge and needs and adapting accordingly. This can be achieved through open dialogue and active listening, which creates a respectful relationship and invites the audience to engage and learn intentionally.
We should even respect the audience’s lack of interest in specific topics. Even if we believe a topic could benefit them, the audience may prioritize other, more immediate needs over our knowledge.
#2 Close the distance
Let’s be honest, scientists, science communicators, and other professionals with academic backgrounds belong to a bubble few understand. Our language, social class, behaviors, and titles can come across as elitist and unrelatable. Underrepresented groups may consciously or unconsciously dissociate from us due to the gap.
Humm and Schrögel include the perspective of a young Muslim from the study who described science as “very white” and “very elitist,” associating it with exclusivity.
Although more challenging to resolve than the first point, the study recommends narrowing the gap between the public and communicators by communicating more informally, humorously, and colloquially. At first glance, it may seem as simple as adopting a more laid-back personality. But the challenge lies in doing this authentically. A forced personality can turn communicators into that high school teacher we all remember who faked a youthful attitude to win the students’ respect and ended up losing it.
As scientists, we sometimes overemphasize our experience, titles, and affiliations. The authors argue that these details matter less to the audience than the knowledge and how we share it.
#3 Use relevant communication
Sometimes, we know our audience’s needs but fail to make the information relatable. One of my recent cohorts of students wrote a science news article for scientists and science enthusiasts. While many students accurately described the biology underlying the discovery of a new class of malaria drug, most failed to emphasize the detail most readers relate to: the drug itself.
The tendency to over-rely on scientific details and forget what’s relevant to the audience isn’t unique to these students. Most scientists miss the relevance perspective when they first start communicating science.
Humm and Schrögel highlight that event organizers can engage the underserved public better by anchoring scientific knowledge with real-world examples relevant to the audience’s lives and interests. A job-related framing of the function and value of green technology can cater to vocational school students, for example.
But, the authors also point out that the project’s connection with the audience goes beyond the content. Science communicators can address the relevance through logistical, emotional, or social acts. Organizing events in environments relatable to the audience, such as at a neighborhood café or offering free health screenings, can make the topic or event more accessible and relatable.
#4 Go where people are
My previous cancer institute and hospital organized on-site open house events for the public to showcase the state-of-the-art research and healthcare we provided. Still, thinking back, most visitors shared the same background and style: white, middle-class Dutch in their 50s or so.
We don’t usually think about these details, but some places are intimidating or unwelcoming to specific, often marginalized groups. Humm and Schrögel explain that research institutes and classicist science buildings with a “closed-off” style may attract academics but repel underserved groups.
They suggest bringing the science communication event to locations the audience can relate to, such as familiar places where the community typically goes. The authors point out that the events can occur in local cafés, pubs, and vocational schools instead of the more exclusive academic sites.
One expert noted that “you always have to go into the neighborhood and sometimes you also have to invite people first. Or another experience we had with refugees, you have to go there and sometimes you have to accompany the people to bring them to the museum.”
#5 Collaborate with relevant participants
The recommendations so far have emphasized relevance and understanding. But how are we supposed to know the public’s needs, what they consider relevant, or where they hang out? Our demographic bubbles can sometimes leave us unaware of these details.
The authors highlighted the importance of collaborating with engaged local personalities to understand the community’s needs. Chances are the audience members trust these representatives and respect—or even look up to—their perspectives. We might even find researchers who share the audience’s demographic background. These contacts have insights into both worlds and can reliably advise or participate as well-regarded and trusted presenters.
As long as the event organization considers and respects participants’ interests, time, and limitations, these collaborations can provide well-informed and long-term learning opportunities for all.
#6 Mind the “Openness Paradox”
As we try to make science more accessible to the public, we may find that the objective of openness holds back the project. Too much openness can backfire because it requires participants’ prior knowledge or experience in initiative-taking tasks. It can overwhelm audience members with limited experience in participatory activities, such as political or scientific discussions.
Asking underserved groups to co-design a scientific project from scratch can overwhelm individuals with specific cultural or educational backgrounds. The level of scientific familiarity can affect confidence and limit already marginalized groups less familiar with science from engaging in brainstorming sessions.
The authors suggest framing the project to avoid open-ended interactions that the audience might perceive as abstract or vague. The project should specify the institution responsible for the project, its objectives (for example, science education), and a defined topic (for example, social justice).
#7 Commit long-term to the audience
Science and science communication projects require time and dedication. We rarely achieve real change overnight, so although well-intended, one-time activities or projects can frustrate underserved audiences—or any audience for that matter. They lack depth, trust, and relevance.
Humm and Schrögel argue that continuous long-term engagement is especially vital when communicating science with underserved audiences, a historically marginalized group. They bring our attention to an audience member describing the superficial gesture of science-learning activities during Black History Month. During this month, the US commemorates the history and contributions of African Americans. The participant angrily described this as an empty attempt to create an impression of inclusivity, stating they’re “not invited the rest of the year!”
Rather than external actors, the two authors conclude that local institutions or community groups should, ideally, initiate these science engagement projects. These projects should span at least several months to a few years, which provides enough time to build trust, sustained interest, and ongoing participation.
A partial but reachable solution to inclusive science communication
With scientific advancements taking more space and intertwining with societal decisions, including the public in the scientific discourse has become ever more vital. Scientific literacy can help us make decisions based on values, that is, subjective evaluations of the worth, desirability, or usefulness of something. For example, a better understanding of the implications of a virus (empirical knowledge) can inform our decision-making about lockdowns or mandatory vaccines (based on values). (Read more about the difference between empirical and value judgments here.)
But, the conscious or unconscious exclusion of specific groups from scientific knowledge prevents the majority from democratically engaging with important issues. It harms informed decisions in the long term.
Humm and Schrögel’s recommendations are a step to make science communication more inclusive, especially when we believe we’re spreading science to all. As the authors highlight, “the proposed guidelines can be understood as a “weak form of inclusion,” only addressing a limited set of the intersecting exclusion factors present in the field of science communication.” They also acknowledge that the recommendations are Eurocentric and might not apply to other contexts.
The real question is what has prevented the inclusion of these groups in the first place.
If you ask me, these issues are deeply rooted in our society, where most people get minimal space to engage in important issues and make a difference. Exclusive science communication is just a symptom of this. Still, we have to start somewhere. Humm and Schrögel acknowledge this, and their recommendations can take science and science communication to a better and more inclusive level that serves as many people as possible.
