ECREA16-Abstract

572

Friday, November 11

1 6 : 0 0 – 1 7 : 3 0

SCI02

Science and Society

PP 390

Re-Thinking the Social Contract Between Science and Society: Steps to an Ecology of Science Communication

P. Hetland

University of Oslo, Department of Education, Oslo, Norway

Science, technology and public enlightenment are crucial elements of the modern project. As a forerunner of the modern project, academia includes educa‑

tion, scientific research and the public communication of science and technology (PCST) as its three most prominent assignments. In the last few decades,

there has been an increased focus within the third assignment on the following two areas: first, the way in which different models of expert-public inter‑

action frame public involvement; and second, the way in which different models of science and technology popularisation frame science and technology

narratives. This interest has emerged partly from the ongoing debate about science’s new social contract with society. A diverse range of people engage in

popularised science, as well as in the act of doing science, giving feedback directly or indirectly, facilitating a variety of communication forms with many

possible outcomes (be they upstream or downstream mediating processes), conducting knowledge dialogues or building new knowledge. Consequently,

the eco-system of PCST may be studied in many dimensions. The present paper has a multiple-case design, and is guided by three key questions. First,

how is the public communication of science and technology organised in different models of expert-public interaction? Second, how do different models

of science and technology popularisation frame science and technology narratives? Third, and building on the first two questions, what are the implications

of these models for the social contract between science and society? This paper synthesises six exploratory case studies of PCST, combined with a compara‑

tive mixed-methods study. In Study I, the focus is on presenting how Norwegian policy regarding science communication has been formulated since 1975.

Three communication models (dissemination, dialogue and participation) and three sub-models of science and technology popularisation (PAST, PEST and

CUSP) are identified. Study II investigates how the PAST sub-model is promoted by science and technology boosterism and, consequently, the strong pro-in‑

novation bias in PCST. Study III examines the PEST/CUSP sub-models and how the narratives of control contribute to the domestication of new technology,

including how expectancy cycles related to a specific technology fluctuate in the mass media. This relationship is an important element that links PCST

with innovation studies and also opens up different forms of public engagement. Study IV explores the CUSP sub-model and the ways in which researchers

popularise a new technology, in comparison to the popularisation activities of Norwegian journalists. Most researchers aim to curb mediatization processes

and the constant growth of the media’s influence in contemporary society. As such, this study is also interesting in a context in which news-gathering in

both new-media and traditional-media landscapes faces financial pressure. Study V analyses how the dialogue model is applied in design and policy exper‑

iments to determine the potential for dialogue. The study structures this potential along two axes: the intensity of participation in knowledge, and policy

construction processes. Finally, Study VI probes the participation model through a case study of Citizen Science and important processes in the building

of boundary infrastructures.

PP 391

Exploring Science Communication Between a Patient Organisation and Its Stakeholders

I. van Marion

Delft University of Technology, Science Education and Communication, Delft, Netherlands

One of the key functions of science communication by patient organisations is to translate relevant research findings to patients and to enable dialog

between patients and researchers about their needs, to improve doctor-patient relations, to create general public awareness, and to foster industrial innova‑

tions. In addition, science communication by patient organisations is also used as a means to transform research into arguments that can influence health‑

care policies (Barbot, 2005). So far, little is known about the practices and factors shaping science communication between patient organisations and their

different stakeholders. This paper explores this context of one Belgian patient organisation and describes how a communication strategy can be developed

and used with the aim to improve science communication by patient organisations. Research carried out on patient-doctor relations has already identified

challenges. Patients who are perceived as good communication partners receive a more supportive and informative response from their doctors (Street et al,

2007) and patient organisations can play an important role in this by improving the scientific knowledge of patients.Wilkinson (2008) mentions that patient

groups can successfully influence public policy and also states that an increasing number of scientific institutions are committed to "proactive engagement"

of patient organisations in their research, for example by involving them in drawing up protocols for clinical trials. Rosenblum and Bates (2013) believe

that patient-centred healthcare, the internet and social media can create a major shift in how patients and healthcare organizations connect. Patients are

becoming increasingly involved with their care in general, and they search online for information. There they have contact and exchange information with

other patients but also encounter information frompatient organizations. From all of this, it is clear that patient organizations can be of influence in bridging

the gap between different stakeholders by taking a central role and fostering dialog. Surveys, in-depth interviews with key actors and analysis of scientific

content produced by them will serve as data for the "communication spectrum" analytical tool, as adjusted for science communication by Wehrmann and

Van der Sanden (2007). By using this tool, the study maps and analyses the science communication currently used between a Belgian patient organization

and its stakeholders. This leads to the proposal of recommendations to improve their communication strategy. References: Barbot, J. (2005). How to build

an ‘active’patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Social Science & Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.025. Rozenblum, R., & Bates, D. W.

(2013). Patient-centred healthcare, social media and the internet: the perfect storm? BMJ Quality & Safety, doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012–001744. Street, R.L.

Jr., Gordon, H., Haidet, P. (2007). Physicians’communication and perceptions of patients: is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor? Soc Sci

Med, 65: 586–598. Wehrmann, C., & Sanden, M. C. A. van der (2007). Communication spectrum: useful instrument in the science communication practice?

The necessity of combining theory and practice. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 35 (1), 79–98. Wilkinson, E. (2008). Patient organisations aim

for greater collaboration. Molecular Oncology, 2(3): 200–202.