An official website of the United States government
Science communication plays a pivotal role in cultural engagement and life-long science learning. However, historically marginalized communities remain undervalued in these efforts due to practices that prioritize specific individuals, such as those who are affluent, college-educated, able-bodied, and already scientifically engaged. Science communicators can avoid these practices by acknowledging the intersecting historical and cultural dimensions surrounding science beyond those of the majority culture and practicing inclusive science communication efforts. Here, we define and describe the importance of inclusive science communication and outline how we use an asset-based community engagement framework in a place-based education program's communication practices with rural communities in the Southwestern United States. We describe how we designed our communication spaces, found our voice, and effectively communicate with non-English speaking and bilingual communities. We provide examples from the We are Water program, demonstrating how we utilize inclusive science communication practices to engage more widely with diverse communities and create space for community voices to be heard and shared. We conclude that the use of inclusive science communication strategies and an asset-based community engagement framework has allowed the We are Water program to connect with rural communities while communicating in a way that elevates historically marginalized voices, creates space for communities to share their own experiences through memories and stories, and honors diverse perspectives and ways of knowing.
more »
« less
A Tool for Informing Community-Engaged Projects
While research suggests that community-engaged projects can be particularly effective, such work is notoriously time consuming and not scalable. The learning curve for an organization seeking to start such work is steep. Additionally, it is important to evaluate to what extent work typified as community engaged work actually creates a participatory space of communitycentered perspectives regarding roles, interests, worldviews, actions and outcomes. To this end, we developed a formative assessment tool using previously identified domains [1]. This tool, created in partnership between a university and an outreach group affiliated with the Air Force, allows organizations to evaluate existing projects and explore ways to develop on a path towards true community-engagement. The outreach group in this case undertakes significant STEM education within New Mexico, but in the past, a majority of the work has been done “for” or “to” communities, rather than “with” communities. We share development and initial use of the tool. By using the tool, several members made aspects of their work more explicit. Specifically, members shared ways they sought ideas, feedback, and insight from teachers, and how this informed their ongoing work. While the initial use of the tool revealed some uncertainty about community engagement, it opened space to value and expand existing practices aligned to community engagement. With increased use of the tool, members came to see some of their existing practices that were already aligned to community-engagement as more valued, and the individuals who led such work were positioned as contributing expertise, rather than anecdotes. Ongoing use of the tool, paired with leadership support, is driving the organization to change how they view community roles.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1751369
- PAR ID:
- 10311739
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ASEE 128th Annual Conference and Exhibition
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Despite widespread interest in science communication, public engagement with science, and engaged research, a large gap exists between the theories behind science engagement and how it is practiced within the scientific community. The scholarship of science engagement is also fractured, with knowledge and insights fragmented across discourses related to science communication, informal science learning, participatory research, and sustainability science. In the present article, we share a planning tool for integrating evidence and theory from these discourses into effective programs and projects. The ECO framework promotes three distinct and interacting modes of science engagement practice: formative engagement (listening and relationship building), codesign and coproduction (action-oriented partnerships), and broader outreach (expanding networks and dissemination). By planning engagement activities with attention to these three modes of engagement, scientists and scientific research organizations will be better poised to address urgent needs for stronger connections between science and society and increased use of scientific research in decision-making.more » « less
-
Abstract Co‐production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co‐production is conducted can perpetuate long‐standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co‐production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision‐relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co‐production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co‐production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place‐based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co‐production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co‐production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable.more » « less
-
In this article, we discuss various public-facing scholarly activities we have engaged in and how these initiatives have reached large audiences to widely spread messages about language and linguistic equity and inclusion. We provide guidance for how to launch, coordinate, and carry out public outreach initiatives and community-engaged research, how to navigate potential pitfalls and position these efforts for success, and how to demonstrate the direct value and relevance of the work. We also offer strategies and advice for other linguists engaging in public outreach endeavors, especially with regard to connecting community-engaged work with teaching and research for maximal impact within the scholarly ecosystem. Community-engaged research and public-facing initiatives are best conceptualized and undertaken in comprehensive, intentional, informed by, and planned in ways that align with best practices in the literature and integrated into the scholarly enterprise. We assert that public-facing work is critical to the relevance and impact of linguistics and higher education. Most importantly, public-facing work that makes insights from research relevant to the public can help advance the broader goal of education for social impact and the public good.more » « less
-
Abstract The museum field currently and historically has centered on the needs of White, educated, privileged, and affluent people, and changing that reality requires new ways of conceptualizing, organizing, and assessing our core practices. Practice‐based models—including specific stories of how museums and communities work together—are still needed in our field, both as guidance for structuring future projects and as inspiration for what is possible. We share a case study of a 10‐year makerspace design process and identify key features for sustaining community–museum relationships over an extended period of work, which we call community‐informed design. We describe five key aspects that promote sustainability in terms of community–museum relationships and the creation of high‐quality experiences: naming values and assumptions, emergent planning, flexible and distributed staffing, organization‐to‐organization relationships, and layered data.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36625
