.jpg)
Will science communication soon be part of the performance review?
Will science communication remain a hobby that scientists pursue largely in their spare time? Or will it become part of university recruitment, selection, and assessment systems? And will there still be room for the eccentric, archetypal scientist in an attic room?
.jpg)
When UvA physicist Ivo van Vulpen became a part-time professor of science communication in Leiden, some colleagues warned him: “Ivo, what are you doing? Just keep looking for particles.” Skepticism among scientists about popularizing science is still prevalent, especially in the somewhat more hard-core science circles. That is not surprising, considering that scientists are still invariably rewarded for achieving scientific results.
But that is slowly beginning to change. Van Vulpen says: “I sense that more and more people think science communication is important. But a cultural change is needed to make that shift. Until now, there weren’t many levers at the university to push to give those already engaged in science communication a boost, but that’s starting to change.”
Jack of all trades
Van Vulpen knows from experience that not everyone is in favor of more science communication. “One of the arguments is that research is losing international clout. Personally, I think there is a fear that scientists will be asked to do things they are not good at. Is there still room for the eccentric scientist, the archetypal scientist in an attic room, or should we all be jacks of all trades?”
According to Van Vulpen, it is important for the university to hire more people with different profiles and thus not select only on the basis of research. “So there might be two qualified scientists but specialized in different areas. Not everyone has to do science communication, but people who do should not be disadvantaged.”
Science communication should also be part of the annual performance review. A researcher with a good proposal for science communication should also be given, say, six months of time and money to develop the idea thoroughly, Van Vulpen suggests.
.jpg)
Flowers between the paving stones
That happens too little now, says UvA pedagogue Eddie Brummelman, also a board member of Science & Society at De Jonge Akademie (DJA). “There are now prizes and grants you can apply for in science communication, but they are still quite small. They are little flowers sprouting between the paving stones, but they are not yet part of the structure.”
Brummelman continues: “So far, science communication is still mainly seen as a hobby, often referred to with the word ‘enthusiasm.’ I do see a change in mentality, but not yet in the underlying systems. My view is that if no time or money is allotted for this, you can’t expect employees to commit to it, either.”
Annual performance review
One of the recommendations of the research report by the KNAW, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, which investigated this, is therefore to give science communication a full-fledged place in the creation of career profiles alongside research, teaching, and academic leadership (and patient care in the case of the UMCs). The national program Recognize and Appreciate also wants scientists to no longer be rewarded solely on research but on a wide range of skills, including science communication.
How this is implemented varies from university to university. Some, such as Maastricht University and the UMC in Utrecht, choose new career profiles in which, for example, 20 percent of the time is reserved for science communication. At the VU, too, a so-called “impact profile” has already been established at the central level. It is now up to the faculties themselves to decide how to flesh it out.”
The UvA is opting for career paths in which researchers as individuals and as a team can emphasize research, teaching, impact, leadership, or collaboration. Recently, the Recognize and Appreciate working group discussed experiences, visions for the future, and dilemmas with employees in interviews and co-creation sessions. Experiments will be conducted in 2024 to put career differentiation into practice. The Recognition and Appreciation Working Group at the UvA does not want to say much about this yet, because the exact policy has not yet been formulated.
At the same time, the assessment of science communication raises new dilemmas. How do you compare a successful Twitter account with a high-profile workshop? Brummelman says: “That is incredibly difficult because the forms are so diverse. Also, sometimes impact only becomes clear in retrospect when a social problem arises for which the research is relevant. That requires more research to arrive at an evidence-based assessment system in which we don’t want to measure everything by the same yardstick.”
Science on the scene
The dilemmas scientists struggle with are also reflected in the interactive theater performance “Science Communication: Appreciated!” written by VU scientist and theater producer Frank Kupper, which is touring 10 universities this fall. In the performance, actors play out recognizable real-life situations of science communication to arrive at concrete action points. The audience can then respond to the scenes by sharing concerns or making suggestions, after which the scene is replayed.
“Comments researchers often hear are: ‘It’s nice that you’re making that podcast, but make sure it doesn’t come at the expense of your publication,’” Kupper says. “The implicit norm is still that making an impact comes after the research.”
The focus on academic excellence makes it complicated to engage in meaningful interaction with society. From the premiere of the performance in Leiden, Kupper noted that many people want more space for science communication but are still stuck in the old structure. “It’s a dilemma of structure and culture. One of the action points that came out of the performance is that researchers will still start the conversation with their research leader to ask for more attention to science communication in the department.”
This is the final installment of a three-part series on science communication.
