11
Essay Practical Science Communication Strategies for Graduate Students LAUREN M. KUEHNE, LAURA A. TWARDOCHLEB, KEITH J. FRITSCHIE, MERYL C. MIMS, DAVID J. LAWRENCE, POLLY P. GIBSON, BEN STEWART-KOSTER, AND JULIAN D. OLDEN† School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195-5020, U.S.A. Abstract: Development of skills in science communication is a well-acknowledged gap in graduate training, but the constraints that accompany research (limited time, resources, and knowledge of opportunities) make it challenging to acquire these proficiencies. Furthermore, advisors and institutions may find it difficult to support graduate students adequately in these efforts. The result is fewer career and societal benefits because students have not learned to communicate research effectively beyond their scientific peers. To help overcome these hurdles, we developed a practical approach to incorporating broad science communication into any graduate-school time line. The approach consists of a portfolio approach that organizes outreach activities along a time line of planned graduate studies. To help design the portfolio, we mapped available science communication tools according to 5 core skills essential to most scientific careers: writing, public speaking, leadership, project management, and teaching. This helps graduate students consider the diversity of communication tools based on their desired skills, time constraints, barriers to entry, target audiences, and personal and societal communication goals. By designing a portfolio with an advisor’s input, guidance, and approval, graduate students can gauge how much outreach is appropriate given their other commitments to teaching, research, and classes. The student benefits from the advisors’ experience and mentorship, promotes the group’s research, and establishes a track record of engagement. When graduate student participation in science communication is discussed, it is often recommended that institutions offer or require more training in communication, project management, and leadership. We suggest that graduate students can also adopt a do-it-yourself approach that includes determining students’ own outreach objectives and time constraints and communicating these with their advisor. By doing so we hope students will help create a new culture of science communication in graduate student education. Keywords: altimetrics, education, graduate training, outreach, professional development, science engagement, social contract, social media Estrategias Pr´ acticas para la Comunicaci´ on Cient´ ıfica para Estudiantes de Posgrado Resumen: El desarrollo de habilidades en la comunicaci´ on de la ciencia es un vac´ ıo bien conocido en el entrenamiento de posgraduados, pero las restricciones que acompa˜ nan a la investigaci´ on (limitaciones de tiempo, recursos y conocimiento de oportunidades) hacen complicado el obtener estas competencias. M´ as all´ a, los asesores y las instituciones pueden encontrar dif´ ıcil el apoyar adecuadamente a los estudiantes de posgrado en estos esfuerzos. El resultado son menos beneficios sociales y de carrera porque los estudiantes no han aprendido a comunicar efectivamente la investigaci´ on m´ as all´ a de sus colegas cient´ ıficos. Para ayudar a superar estos obst´ aculos, desarrollamos un acercamiento pr´ actico para incorporar la comunicaci´ on amplia de la ciencia en cualquier l´ ınea de tiempo de posgrado. El acercamiento consiste en un portafolio que organiza actividades de alcance a lo largo de un cronograma de estudios de posgrado planeados. Para ayudar a dise˜ nar el portafolio, mapeamos las herramientas de comunicaci´ on cient´ ıfica disponibles de acuerdo a cinco habilidades n´ ucleo esenciales para la mayor´ ıa de las carreras cient´ ıficas: redacci´ on, oratoria, liderazgo, manejo de proyecto y ense˜ nanza. Esto ayuda a los estudiantes de posgrado a considerar la diversidad de These authors contributed equally to the article. email [email protected] Paper submitted July 17, 2013; revised manuscript accepted January 30, 2014. 1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–11 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12305

Practical Science Communication Strategies for Graduate Students

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Essay

Practical Science Communication Strategies forGraduate StudentsLAUREN M. KUEHNE, ∗ LAURA A. TWARDOCHLEB, ∗ KEITH J. FRITSCHIE, MERYL C. MIMS,DAVID J. LAWRENCE, POLLY P. GIBSON, BEN STEWART-KOSTER, AND JULIAN D. OLDEN†School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195-5020, U.S.A.

Abstract: Development of skills in science communication is a well-acknowledged gap in graduate training,but the constraints that accompany research (limited time, resources, and knowledge of opportunities) makeit challenging to acquire these proficiencies. Furthermore, advisors and institutions may find it difficultto support graduate students adequately in these efforts. The result is fewer career and societal benefitsbecause students have not learned to communicate research effectively beyond their scientific peers. To helpovercome these hurdles, we developed a practical approach to incorporating broad science communicationinto any graduate-school time line. The approach consists of a portfolio approach that organizes outreachactivities along a time line of planned graduate studies. To help design the portfolio, we mapped availablescience communication tools according to 5 core skills essential to most scientific careers: writing, publicspeaking, leadership, project management, and teaching. This helps graduate students consider the diversityof communication tools based on their desired skills, time constraints, barriers to entry, target audiences, andpersonal and societal communication goals. By designing a portfolio with an advisor’s input, guidance, andapproval, graduate students can gauge how much outreach is appropriate given their other commitments toteaching, research, and classes. The student benefits from the advisors’ experience and mentorship, promotesthe group’s research, and establishes a track record of engagement. When graduate student participation inscience communication is discussed, it is often recommended that institutions offer or require more trainingin communication, project management, and leadership. We suggest that graduate students can also adopta do-it-yourself approach that includes determining students’ own outreach objectives and time constraintsand communicating these with their advisor. By doing so we hope students will help create a new culture ofscience communication in graduate student education.

Keywords: altimetrics, education, graduate training, outreach, professional development, science engagement,social contract, social media

Estrategias Practicas para la Comunicacion Cientıfica para Estudiantes de Posgrado

Resumen: El desarrollo de habilidades en la comunicacion de la ciencia es un vacıo bien conocido en elentrenamiento de posgraduados, pero las restricciones que acompanan a la investigacion (limitaciones detiempo, recursos y conocimiento de oportunidades) hacen complicado el obtener estas competencias. Masalla, los asesores y las instituciones pueden encontrar difıcil el apoyar adecuadamente a los estudiantes deposgrado en estos esfuerzos. El resultado son menos beneficios sociales y de carrera porque los estudiantes nohan aprendido a comunicar efectivamente la investigacion mas alla de sus colegas cientıficos. Para ayudar asuperar estos obstaculos, desarrollamos un acercamiento practico para incorporar la comunicacion amplia dela ciencia en cualquier lınea de tiempo de posgrado. El acercamiento consiste en un portafolio que organizaactividades de alcance a lo largo de un cronograma de estudios de posgrado planeados. Para ayudar adisenar el portafolio, mapeamos las herramientas de comunicacion cientıfica disponibles de acuerdo a cincohabilidades nucleo esenciales para la mayorıa de las carreras cientıficas: redaccion, oratoria, liderazgo,manejo de proyecto y ensenanza. Esto ayuda a los estudiantes de posgrado a considerar la diversidad de

∗These authors contributed equally to the article.†email [email protected] submitted July 17, 2013; revised manuscript accepted January 30, 2014.

1Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–11C© 2014 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/cobi.12305

2 Graduate Student Science Communication

las herramientas de comunicacion basandose en sus habilidades deseadas, restricciones de tiempo, barrerasde entrada, publico objetivo y metas de comunicacion personales y sociales. Al disenar un portafolio con lacontribucion, direccion y aprobacion de un asesor, los estudiantes de posgrado pueden calibrar cuanto alcancees apropiado, dados sus otros compromisos con la ensenanza, la investigacion y las clases. El estudiantese beneficia con la experiencia y tutorıa del asesor, promueve la investigacion del grupo y establece unregistro de compromiso. Cuando la participacion del estudiante de posgrado en comunicacion cientıfica sediscute, frecuentemente se recomienda que las instituciones ofrezcan o requieran mas entrenamiento encomunicacion, manejo de proyecto y liderazgo. Sugerimos que los estudiantes de posgrado tambien puedanadoptar un acercamiento de hazlo-tu-mismo que incluya determinar las metas de alcance y restricciones detiempo del propio estudiante y poderlas comunicar con su asesor. Al hacer esto, esperamos que los estudiantesayuden a crear una nueva cultura de comunicacion cientıfica en la educacion de posgrado.

Palabras Clave: Alcance, altimetrıa, compromiso cientıfico, contrato social, desarrollo profesional, educacion,entrenamiento de posgrado, medios sociales

Introduction

The goal of communicating scientific research with di-verse audiences is rooted in many scientists’ desire toshare their knowledge in order to fuel discovery andencourage science literacy (Pace et al. 2010). Recently,these overarching motivations have been more formallystated as a social contract between scientists and thewider world to accelerate solutions to some of ourmost pressing environmental issues (Lubchenco 1998).Graduate students (and their faculty advisors) often citetime constraints as the primary obstacle to participatingin science communication. The general presumption isthat to be successful students and early-career scientistsmust focus on learning to conduct high-quality research,making the additional time and energetic demands ofoutreach, education, and service prohibitory (Andrewset al. 2005). However, not only is this an unsatisfyingsituation for many young scientists—who are often mo-tivated by a desire to contribute—but it does not allowthem the professional benefits associated with learninghow to communicate broadly their own and others’ re-search (Jensen et al. 2008; Baron 2010b). Further, im-portant societal benefits go unrealized when graduatestudents do not engage due to constraints such as lackof time, information, or institutional support (Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009).

We believe graduate students have an important rolein science communication but concurrently have insuffi-cient resources to navigate this daunting process. For thisreason, we developed a practical approach for studentsto learn and practice science communication during theirgraduate tenure in the biological sciences. Although thereare many ways to define science communication, we re-fer to engaging with the public and promoting conver-sations about scientific research in ways that acknowl-edge and respect differences in values and perspectives(i.e., a public-engagement vs. a deficit model) (Nisbet& Scheufele 2009; Groffman et al. 2010). We consid-ered the benefits and opportunities to graduate studentsand determined tools and strategies for student engage-

ment in science communication given a student’s goalsand time constraints. We present examples of effectivetraining programs that are available to graduate studentsand early career scientists. We developed a portfolioapproach to integrating science communication into agraduate-school time line with the goal of embedding asuite of training skills into the culture of graduate school.Our overarching goal is to empower more students toovercome barriers and incorporate broad science com-munication into their graduate education.

Societal Benefits of Broad Science Communication byGraduate Students

A goal that many scientists share is to help develop ascientifically literate public capable of participating incomplex health, environmental, and socio-economic de-cision making. However, traditional science communi-cation pathways, via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications, fail to reliably deliver informationto the general public and policymakers (Shanley & Lopez2009; Suleski & Ibaraki 2010; Hansen 2011). A miscon-ception persists among scientists that interactions withthe public may lead to misunderstanding and conflict(Weigold 2001; Ecklund et al. 2012), but in reality sus-tained relationships between scientists and environmen-tal stakeholders foster greater public access to, and trustin, the sciences (Lach et al. 2003; Pace et al. 2010). Scien-tists who actively engage the public can make scientificinformation available and more compelling to a broaderspectrum of society (Nisbet & Scheufele 2009) and estab-lish 2-way avenues of communication between scientistsand stakeholders (Roux et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2013). Byeliminating barriers among academic, public, and polit-ical communities, scientists can promote incorporationof science into social and environmental policy making(Meyer et al. 2010) and thus narrow the gap betweenresearch and implementation (Roux et al. 2006; Arlettazet al. 2010; Cook et al. 2013).

Participating in science communication as a graduatestudent has immediate benefits of reaching nonacademic

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

Kuehne et al. 3

audiences, and it serves as an important training toolfor science communication later in a career (Newing2010). More than just a preparatory exercise, however,graduate students contribute to societal benefits of sci-ence communication and even provide additional bene-fits for audiences not commonly targeted by mid- andlate-career scientists. For example, graduate studentsare perhaps best suited to connect with a youngersocial demographic and inspire the next generationof scientists (Messinger et al. 2009). As mentors forelementary, high school, and undergraduate students,graduate students can help recruit into STEM (science,technology, engineering, mathematics) fields (Quimbyet al. 2007) and enhance scientific literacy among youngaudiences (Beck et al. 2006). In addition, graduate re-search is often (though not always) highly relevant tolocal ecosystems or organisms; as such, graduate stu-dents may be well positioned to communicate researchin the local environment to managers and the pub-lic (Pace et al. 2010). For these reasons, we believegraduate students are uniquely poised to interact withyoung students, local managers, and the public to achieveboth research goals and societal benefits of sciencecommunication.

Benefits of Science Communication to Graduate Students

Desire to contribute to society is often a leading motivatorfor graduate students to engage in science communica-tion (COSEE New England 2003; Andrews et al. 2005), butthere are also appreciable professional benefits in doingso (Messinger et al. 2009; Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009).Communicating science to the general public can expandand improve writing and speaking skills, while engag-ing in citizen science or outreach programs will developteaching, leadership, and management abilities (Milliman1996). These skills are integral to most scientific careers,and developing these skills during graduate school canenhance one’s marketability in the future (Cannon et al.1996; Blickley et al. 2012; Linton 2013).

Engaging in science communication can also earngraduate students cumulative career benefits, includingincreased funding opportunities and recognition frompeers. Establishing a record of science communicationearly in a career can support successful grant applicationswith funding agencies, such as the National Science Foun-dation, that value “broader impacts,” including whetherresearch promotes learning, broadens dissemination, andbenefits society (Messinger et al. 2009). Furthermore,communicating effectively with the general public re-quires scientists to understand the perspective of theiraudience and frame their message in relevant ways (Groff-man et al. 2010), a practice that will also improve com-munication with other scientists (Baron 2010b). Finally,science communication helps graduate researchers cre-ate networks with other scientists and environmental

stakeholders, which then promotes innovative collabora-tions and interdisciplinary research (Pace et al. 2010; Fox2012). Given the opportunities for career advancement,we believe the time devoted to science communicationis a valuable investment.

Important personal benefits are also available to grad-uate students who engage in science communication ac-tivities. The first is simply confidence that comes frommastering diverse communication skills; this is especiallyuseful given the variety of career paths in research, edu-cation, and policy that are available to graduate studentsin the sciences (McBride et al. 2011). Second, graduateand faculty researchers consistently cite fun, satisfaction,and enjoyment as substantial motivations for outreach,education, and service activities (Andrews et al. 2005;Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009). Members of our own lab(collectively the authors include 3 master’s and 2 PhDstudents, 1 postdoctoral researcher, 1 research scientist,and 1 early career professor) find that the immediatefeedback about their research that comes from engagingin science communication is a reinvigorating contrast tothe (relatively) slow appreciation arising from the pro-cess of research, peer-review, and revision (e.g., Kareivaet al. 2002). Although it is difficult to truly quantify theimportance of fulfillment and motivation, we believethey hold significant value for demanding careers in thesciences.

By participating in science communication activitiesover several years, graduate students in our lab haveenjoyed many of the benefits outlined. However, wehave found that resources for effective science commu-nication are overwhelmingly targeted at established re-searchers and late career faculty. For example, guidesto science communication (e.g., Baron 2010a; Meyeret al. 2010) provide advice for approaching membersof Congress about policy matters or working with themedia, but graduate students are more likely to interactwith local agencies, special interest groups, and nonprofitoutreach organizations. Furthermore, although modelsof high quality training in science communication cer-tainly exist for graduate students, our own review ofthese opportunities indicates they are often in the formof highly competitive fellowships or require relativelylarge commitments of time or funding, circumstancesthat discourage widespread participation during graduatetenure. Combined with a lack of consensus as to whetherand how graduate students should participate in these ac-tivities, we believe a majority of students in the sciencesare navigating this important question without adequateguidance and support (Cannon et al. 1996; Newing 2010).To begin addressing these resource gaps, we developeda flexible, practical approach for students to learn andpractice science communication during their graduatetenure that includes both do-it-yourself communicationtools and examples of effective science communica-tion training programs that are available to early career

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

4 Graduate Student Science Communication

scientists. Our approach accounts for realistic constraintsas well as differences among students in interest or de-sired outcomes from science communication.

Development of Core Skills through Science Communication

Through a review of the science communication litera-ture, we identified 5 core skills essential to most scien-tific careers: writing, public speaking, leadership, projectmanagement, and teaching (Cannon et al. 1996; Newing2010; Blickley et al. 2012). Students invariably practicecommunicating their research with other scientists (typi-cally through writing and, to a lesser extent, public speak-ing), but they may not have opportunities to developimportant complementary skills in leadership, teamwork,and project management simply by completing theirgraduate program (DeNeef 2002; Blickley et al. 2012).Project management in particular (defined as the processof leading and implementing mission related projects)was identified as the most sought-after skill within gov-ernment, nonprofit, and private job sectors (Blickleyet al. 2012). Science communication offers students op-portunities to develop these skills and helps them gain acompetitive advantage in challenging job markets (Mil-liman 1996). We mapped our 5 identified core skillsto available science communication tools according torecent treatises on the topic (Baron 2010a; Groffmanet al. 2010; Bik & Goldstein 2013) and estimated time in-vestments and certainty of reaching intended audiences(barriers to entry) for each communication tool basedon our collective experience with science communica-tion. We present this system for selecting tools as a tableof traditional and nontraditional communication options,grouped by type of outlet (e.g., print vs. electronic media)(Table 1). This information is intended to assist graduatestudents in choosing from among the diversity of com-munication tools based on their desired skills, time con-straints, barriers to entry, target audiences, and personaland societal communication goals.

Written communication and speaking are among themost important skills for young scientists to master; theyare also the top ranked qualities expected in job appli-cants of biology departments in academic institutions(Fleet et al. 2006). As a matter of course, graduate stu-dents may be expected to write articles for publicationin scientific journals and give presentations at confer-ences, but the reach of those forms of communication isgenerally limited to other scientists in the field (Suleski& Ibaraki 2010). By contrast, less traditional tools suchas maintaining a personal website or contributing toa blog can improve writing skills while allowing non-scientists to access student research directly (Bik & Gold-stein 2013). Choosing to give a presentation to a man-agement agency, special interest group, or the generalpublic allows students to develop their speaking skills andpractice formulating their research message for differ-

ent audiences (Nisbet & Scheufele 2009). Students whoparticularly wish to improve their writing and speakingskills may be able to effectively pair science communica-tion efforts with courses offered through their institution(Table 2) (e.g., Newing 2010). Alternatively, national oreven international training opportunities exist throughnonprofit organizations (Table 2) that teach scientiststo skillfully communicate their research to diverse au-diences (Osmond et al. 2010; Cook et al. 2013; Smithet al. 2013). These types of opportunities are currentlybeing assembled into a widely available database throughan NSF-funded initiative (#GradSciComm; E. Neeley, per-sonal communication).

Teaching, project management, and leadership skillsare also critical to achieving success in many scientificcareers (academic and nonacademic); however, theseskills may remain underdeveloped after completing a tra-ditional graduate degree (Blickley et al. 2012). Sciencecommunication and outreach can thus fill an importantgap in graduate training (Milliman 1996). For example,mentoring undergraduates requires graduate students topractice leadership and teaching. Other science commu-nication options, such as participating in or develop-ing hands-on outreach activities, will develop time andproject management skills. From implementing an ex-periment to managing a research team, these transferableskills are necessary regardless of career choice and stagein the sciences.

In addition to desired skills, we present key factors—namely time investment and barriers to entry—studentscan consider when evaluating potential communicationtools (Table 1). The constraint that will be obvious tomost students is time availability. In Table 1, we indi-cate relative time investments required to use tools orgroups of tools, but recommend that graduate studentsalso research the demands of specific opportunities. Lessintuitively, the barriers to entry (i.e., likelihood that one’scommunication effort is distributed to the intended audi-ence) may also influence one’s ability to engage. Invest-ing time in writing an article for a magazine, for exam-ple, does not guarantee the article will be published. Bycontrast, personal blogs and twitter accounts have lowbarriers to entry but potentially reach a smaller or unin-tended audience (Bik & Goldstein 2013). These trade-offsbetween time investment and barriers to entry can serveas additional criteria to help students tailor a personalapproach to science communication.

Students may also select communication tools basedon a target audience. A student’s career goals or field ofresearch may influence selection of a target audience,and certain tools lend themselves to reaching particularaudiences. For example, in our freshwater ecology lab wedirect our communication toward resource managers,recreationists, and conservation groups. Effective waysto reach these audiences include (respectively) agencytalks and contributing to special interest newsletters and

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

Kuehne et al. 5

Table 1. Science communication tools available to graduate students.a

Communication Core Time Certainty Personal Societaltool skillsb investmentc of outlet benefits benefitsElectronic media

website and socialmedia

W low-med high audience feedback(comments, emailinquiries)

public interaction withscientists

innovative media(podcast, YouTube)

S med-high high

personal blog W med-high highcontribution to widely

read blogW low-med med

Print medialetter to editor W low-med low raise awareness of the

issuedisseminate scientific

knowledgeopinion article W med-high lowprint or specialty

articleW med low

Policy communicationsagency talk S med-high med networking integrate science and

managementnewsletter for agency W med medcontact policy makers W, S high med-high increase notoriety shorten pathway from

science to policyTraditional public

outletstalk to special interest

groupS med med gain anecdotal evidence improve volunteer

conservationoutcomes

newsletter for specialinterest group

W med med

public talk S med low-med increase trust in yourscience

increase trust in yourscience

newsletter for public W med med-highinterview with

university mediaW, S low high raise your profile as a

researcherilluminate and humanize

scienceinterview with local

mediaW, S med med

interview withnational media

W, S high low

Education andoutreach

educational programs S, L med-high low-med reinvigorate yourresearch

inspire future scientists

hands-on outreachprograms

S, L, M low-high med-high

citizen science S, L, M med-high med gain data and resourcesfor your research

increase publicinvestment in science

crowdfunding W, S, M med-high highteach or assist

teachingT, M high high sense of fulfillment improve science

education andenrollment

mentoring T, L med-high high

aStudents may choose tools based on their desired outcomes (i.e., core skills, personal, or societal benefits) or on scheduling constraints (i.e.,time investment and barriers to entry).bAbbreviations: L, leadership; M, management; S, speaking; T, teaching; W, writing.cRange of time investment and barriers to entry (i.e., likelihood that one’s communication effort is distributed to the intended audience),depending on involvement (e.g., leading vs. participating) and scale of impact (e.g., local vs. national). Ranges are based on our assessment andare presented in relative terms; it is recommended that students additionally research specific opportunities they are considering.

blogs; use of these tools helps develop the skills needed tocommunicate with these groups. Although the appro-priate audience for communication of research may beknown, students should be aware that audiences can dif-fer greatly in their stylistic expectations of communica-

tion (Nisbet & Scheufele 2009). As scientists, for example,we are trained to present information as background,methods, results, and implications, but this organizationwill miss the mark for many public audiences, media,and policy makers, for whom results and implications

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

6 Graduate Student Science Communication

Table 2. Examples of effective science communication training programs available to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers.

Intended Time Science communicationProgram career stage investment Description training and skills emphasis

Courses and workshopsCOMPASS all career stages low Scientists work with a team of

communication professionals toimprove the reach and scope oftheir research.

Workshop participants learn tocommunicate their researcheffectively to both scientific andnonscientific audiences.

ComSciCon,HarvardUniversity

graduatestudents

low During workshops, organized forand by students, participantsdeliver speed talks about theirresearch and write and postarticles online intended for ageneral audience.

Students learn to write and speakabout their research to a layaudience. Select onlinemagazines, such as ScientificAmerican Guest Blog, publishshort articles written during theworkshop.

ENGAGE,University ofWashington

graduatestudents

medium In a seminar series, students learnstorytelling, public speakingskills, and audienceperspectives throughpresentation of their ownresearch to the general public.

Students develop skills intranslating their research forgeneral and diverse audiences.Connects members of thepublic to local research andprovides students withopportunities to get feedback.

Michigan StateUniversityGraduate School

graduatestudents

low Students can take a range of shortworkshops geared towarddevelopment of leadership anddiverse communication skills.

Participants learn skills relevant tocareers outside academia,including those that allow themto convey informationeffectively to broad audiences.

Ready, Set, Go,NorthwesternUniversity

graduatestudents andpostdoctoralresearchers

medium Students practice communicationskills through improvisation,storyboarding, and publicspeaking.

Students build confidence inpublic speaking andself-expression while crafting amessage that connects theirresearch to a target audience.

Stony BrookUniversity AlanAlda Center forCommunicatingScience

all career stages low-medium The center offers workshops,such as Improvisation forScientists, and Using DigitalMedia, and graduate courses inscience communication.

Workshops teach students theskills they need tocommunicate emotions thatmotivate them to do researchand provide training in sciencewriting, creating blogs, andrecording podcasts.

Fellowships and collaborative research opportunitiesEmerging Leaders

in Science andSociety,AmericanAssociation fortheAdvancement ofScience (AAAS)

graduatestudents

medium-high Prepares students to addresscomplex challenges in societyby providing hands-onvolunteer programs in the areasof energy and environment andhealth and well-being.

Students interview experts andstakeholders about a real-worldissue and collaborate on aproject aimed at informing thepublic. Participants developcommunication skills fordiverse audiences andentrepreneurship.

Mass MediaScience andEngineeringFellowship,AAAS

graduatestudents andpostdoctoralresearchers

medium-high Summer internship program thatplaces students and researchersin science, technology,engineering, and mathematicsdisciplines to work withnational media organizations.

Through working as reporters,researchers, or editors,participants gain the practicalskills needed to communicatetheir research through media.

Media Fellowship,British ScienceAssociation

all career stages medium-high Places scientists in mediaorganizations to work with aprofessional journalist innational press, broadcast, oronline media.

Scientists help journalists produceaccurate and informed newspieces and learn the journalisticprocess. Journalists andscientists form relationships.

Continued

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

Kuehne et al. 7

Table 2. Continued.

Intended Time Science communicationProgram career stage investment Description training and skills emphasis

SustainabilityLeadershipFellowship,Colorado StateUniversity

graduatestudents andpostdoctoralresearchers

medium-high Graduate and postgraduatestudents interested incommunicating their science tothe media and public areprovided with training.

Students undergo professionaldevelopment and acquiretraining in environmentalcommunication.

David H. SmithConservationFellowship,Cedar TreeFoundation

postdoctoralresearchers

high Provides support for postdoctoralresearchers at U.S. institutionswho are pursuing appliedconservation research.

Fellows receive mentorship anddevelop leadership andcommunication skills.

Liber EroFellowship,Liber EroFoundation

postdoctoralresearchers

high Postdoctoral researchers studyapplied conservation issuesrelevant to Canada.

Fellows receive mentorship anddevelop leadership andcommunication skills.

Knauss MarinePolicyFellowship, SeaGrant

graduatestudents andrecentgraduates

high Fellows work as staff of a memberof the U.S. Congress or with afederal agency addressing issuesin marine or Great Lakesresources.

Fellows gain policy perspectivesand understand how research isintegrated into decision makingwhile working directly withpolicy makers, agencies, andthe general public.

are generally more vital (Baron 2010a). Recognizing dif-ferences between audience expectations and learning toadapt communication accordingly is crucial to effectivelyreaching diverse audiences (Groffman et al. 2010).

In addition to the tools outlined above, graduate stu-dents who seek formal training in communication skillsmay participate in institutional training programs, suchas for-credit courses at their universities. Although theseopportunities are not yet widely available, institutionshave begun to recognize the need to train students incommunicating research outside of academia (Newing2010; Linton 2013). Many universities, as well as gov-ernment and nongovernmental organizations, have re-sponded to this need by providing formal training coursesand programs for graduate students and postdoctoral re-searchers to become leaders in science communication(Table 2). For example, the Engage Science Speaker Se-ries and Seminar is a for-credit course at University ofWashington that trains students to present their researcheffectively to the public, and the Sustainability LeadershipFellowship Program at Colorado State University providesdoctoral and postdoctoral students with professional de-velopment and training in science communication. Inaddition, competitive fellowships (e.g., American Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science—Emerging Leadersin Science and Society, Sea Grant—Knauss Marine PolicyFellowship) allow students to learn these skills throughreal-world problem solving. In Table 2, we provide ex-amples of effective, science communication programs,including short workshops, for-credit courses, and fel-lowships that are available to students and early-careerresearchers. These formal training programs, togetherwith the do-it-yourself approaches outlined in Table 1,

provide young scientists with a breadth of opportuni-ties that support development of key communicationskills.

The landscape of science communication is constantlychanging, both in terms of available tools (Bik & Gold-stein 2013) and ideas about the roles and responsibili-ties of scientists as communicators (Nisbet & Scheufele2009; Marshall 2013). The process presented here is in-tended to assist graduate students in evaluating trade-offsin skills development, time investment, and barriers to en-try, even as the science communication options evolve.Table 1 is a starting (not final) point for students to evalu-ate and tailor their own suite of preferred communicationtools.

Integrating Science Communication into a Graduate TimeLine

Once graduate students decide to engage in science com-munication and are prepared with an idea of their pre-ferred time investment and the kind of interactions theyseek, the next question is, where to start? Even with agood handle on the available communication tools, otherbarriers to engagement exist. Studies and surveys pointto 3 main barriers to graduate student participation incommunication and outreach: too little time, lack of in-formation about opportunities, and no support from ad-visors (deKoven & Trumbull 2002; Andrews et al. 2005;Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009). Postdoctoral researchersand faculty cite the same 3 top barriers to science com-munication (the third is little to no departmental sup-port) (COSEE New England 2003; Andrews et al. 2005).We have attempted to address the first 2 barriers by

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

8 Graduate Student Science Communication

presenting communication options, trade-offs, and exam-ples of training opportunities. By pairing these with plan-ning and communication, graduate students can over-come or reduce the third (critical) barrier of lack ofsupport from an advisor.

The perceived lack of support from advisors is a strik-ing element in studies of graduate student participationin science communication and outreach. In a 2008 sur-vey of 260 student members of the Ecological Society ofAmerica (ESA), over half (57%) did not feel their advisorsupported participation in activities that increased publicenvironmental awareness (Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009).Other studies also show this is a widely held perceptionamong graduate students (deKoven & Trumbull 2002;Andrews et al. 2005). However, in an interview survey of48 graduate students and 12 faculty members at the Uni-versity of Colorado Boulder, Andrews et al. (2005) con-cluded that rather than advisor indifference, lack of com-munication between advisors and students was to blame.The failure of advisors to explicitly bring up outreachwas interpreted by students as lack of interest. Studentsresponded by not discussing the subject, even to theextent of doing “outreach work on the sly without [their]advisor’s consent.” Although we acknowledge some ad-visors do not support students’ engagement, in a major-ity of student–advisor relationships science communica-tion may be suffering (ironically) from a breakdown incommunication.

To aid open communication between graduate stu-dents and their advisors, we propose adopting a port-folio approach to incorporating science communicationas part of a graduate degree (Fig. 1). This approachwas developed based on our collective knowledge oftypical graduate program time lines and communicationexpectations, as well as on recommendations from theliterature and our experience with incorporating sciencecommunication activities into a graduate degree. Plottingoutreach activities along a time line of planned graduatestudies is a transparent way to communicate and tai-lor the desired skills and professional development tobe achieved and, perhaps most importantly, the timeinvestment in outreach activities throughout graduateschool.

By communicating outreach goals to advisors, graduatestudents can reduce or eliminate the 3 major barriers toengagement. First, an investment portfolio approach willhelp mitigate the barrier of time commitment. Andrewset al. (2005) describe both graduate and faculty concernsthat too much prioritization of outreach “is like doing2 PhD theses in parallel.” Students can help overcomethese misperceptions by working with their advisors todevelop a clear time line of communication goals (Fig. 1)that can be achieved with a manageable number of com-munication tools (Table 1) or formal training programs(Table 2). Ideally, these should be mutually agreed onand included in the thesis or dissertation proposal. By

designing a portfolio with an advisor’s input, guidance,and approval, graduate students can gauge how muchoutreach is appropriate given their other commitmentsto teaching, research, and classes (for examples of alow- or high-investment portfolio, see Fig. 1). Second,communication between faculty and graduate studentsregarding incorporation of outreach into a graduate roadmap will promote information exchange about outreachopportunities within a department. Andrews et al. (2005)found that word-of-mouth communication was a drivingfactor in faculty and graduate participation in many out-reach activities. Finally, creating an outreach portfoliowith an advisor provides an icebreaker opportunity fordiscussing the role of outreach in graduate studies andshould help eliminate the third major barrier of minimaladvisor support.

In addition to promoting a more transparent relation-ship, engaging advisors in science communication planshas highly practical benefits. The first is the benefit of theadvisors’ experience and mentorship. Even faculty whoare strongly focused on their research and not activelypursuing science communication are likely to have someexperience to share as a result of receiving requests fromthe media to comment on policy debates or requeststo share their research with community members andspecial interest groups. Second, tremendous opportuni-ties exist for graduate students to collaborate with theiradvisors on meaningful activities that forward the goalsor mission of the research group. For example, in a labdoing research related to local ecosystems (e.g., a valuedlocal species or cultural area), graduate students couldinitiate and update a lab blog to serve as a communityeducational resource. Alternatively, students and facultyinvolved in policy-related research might look for op-portunities to write newspaper editorials or articles thatdeliver their research results to special interest groupsor policy makers. The best suite of approaches—fromblogging to crowd funding—depends on the researchfocus and target audience. Finally, collaboration pro-motes engagement and networking within a student’sfield of research, and the expertise of an advisor (orlab mates) is likely to result in more efficient and ef-fective outreach (Morgan et al. 2008). A collaborativeapproach also allows advisors to more directly bene-fit from their students’ activities by promoting lab re-search and establishing a track record of engagement(Milliman 1996).

Prospectus

The existing literature on strategies, benefits, and op-tions for science communication is often geared towardestablished scientists or tenured faculty (but see Mor-gan et al. 2008; Salguero-Gomez et al. 2009). Whengraduate student participation is discussed, it is often

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

Kuehne et al. 9

Figure 1. Three example portfolios (traditional, low, and high investment) of outreach activities plotted along a2–3 year timeline of graduate studies to aid in communication and planning between students and advisors (CH,graduate thesis or dissertation chapter; R.A., research assistantship; T.A., teaching assistantship). The audiencepotential of each activity is represented as stacked bar plot.

to recommend that institutions offer or require moretraining in communication, project management, andleadership. We suggest that graduate students can adopta do-it-yourself approach that includes determining stu-dents’ own outreach objectives and time constraints andcommunicating these with their advisor(s) as an alter-native or supplement to existing institutional trainingopportunities. This is not because we believe this pathto be the ideal, and we do not wish to downplay theimportance of programs and departmental initiatives thatincorporate science communication into graduate train-ing (e.g., NSF GK-12 programs, communication work-shops, or interdisciplinary curricula [Table 2]). In fact,we strongly believe that science communication shouldbe embedded in the culture of graduate education; thatis, students should be supported (i.e., training opportu-nities) and rewarded (i.e., incentives) by their advisorsand institutions for participating in this nontraditionalacademic realm (Smith et al. 2013).

We believe that encouraging participation and train-ing in science communication—whether formally orinformally—helps meet current challenges in graduateschool modernization identified by organizations such

as the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), professionalsocieties, and the National Science Foundation. A re-cent report by the NSF/CGS Dean in Residence, whichsynthesized key recommendations of industry, govern-ment agencies, and input from graduate deans, con-cluded that the future of graduate education shouldinclude “enhanced professional development” and prepa-ration for diverse career paths (Linton 2013). Support-ing science communication will help graduate schoolsmeet the changing needs of their students and the in-stitutions, industry, and agencies that will later employthem.

Recent calls have also highlighted a need to adjust theprofessional assessment criteria to account for chang-ing modes of scholarly productivity (Shanley & Lopez2009; McDade et al. 2011; Piwowar 2013). Science com-munication is a form of graduate training and produc-tivity that should be recognized without supplantingtraditional forms of scientific output. However, the ap-proach we outline offers graduate students manageableoptions for gaining science communication skills andexperiences regardless of departmental support, whichcan be tailored to their interests and career goals. We

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

10 Graduate Student Science Communication

hope access to an expanded universe of communicationtools and a concrete planning strategy will empowermore students to overcome barriers to engagement andincorporate broad science communication in their grad-uate education.

Acknowledgments

We thank N. Baron (COMPASS), E. Neeley (COMPASS),J. Davison (University of Washington), and 2 anony-mous reviewers for comments that greatly improvedthe manuscript and the Science Communication TaskForce of the University of Washington—College of theEnvironment for inspiration. L.M.K., L.A.T., K.J.F., andM.C.M. were supported by National Science Founda-tion Graduate Research Fellowships and J.D.O. was sup-ported by the H. Mason Keeler Endowed Professorship(School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University ofWashington).

Literature Cited

Andrews, E., A. Weaver, D. Hanley, J. Shamatha, and G. Melton. 2005.Scientists and public outreach: participation, motivations, and im-pediments. Journal of Geoscience Education 53:281–293.

Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, J. E. M. Wat-son, and V. Braunisch. 2010. From publications to public actions:when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research andimplementation. BioScience 60:835–842.

Baron, N. 2010a. Escape from the ivory tower: a guide to making yourscience matter. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Baron, N. 2010b. Stand up for science. Nature 468:1032–1033.Beck, M. R., E. A. Morgan, S. S. Strand, and T. A. Woolsey. 2006. Volun-

teers bring passion to science outreach. Science 314:1246–1247.Bik, H. M., and M. C. Goldstein. 2013. An introduction to social

media for scientists. PLoS Biology 11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535.

Blickley, J., K. Deiner, K. Garbach, I. Lacher, M. Meek, L. Porensky, M.Wilkerson, E. Winford, and M. Schwartz. 2012. Graduate student’sguide to necessary skills for nonacademic conservation careers. Con-servation Biology 27:24–34.

Cannon, J. R., J. M. Dietz, and L. A. Dietz. 1996. Training conserva-tion biologists in human interaction skills. Conservation Biology10:1277–1282.

Cook, C. N., M. B. Mascia, M. W. Schwartz, H. P. Possingham, andR. A. Fuller. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges theknowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27:669–678.

COSEE New England. 2003. Education and outreach needs assessment.11 pp. Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence, WoodsHole, MA. Available from http://www.whoi.edu/cosee/lessons.htm(accessed December 1, 2012).

deKoven, A., and D. Trumbull. 2002. Science graduate students doingscience outreach: participation effects and perceived barriers toparticipation. Electronic Journal of Science Education 7:1–23.

DeNeef, A. L. 2002. The preparing future faculty program: What differ-ence does it make? Association of American Colleges and Universi-ties, Washington, D.C.

Ecklund, E. H., S. A. James, and A. E. Lincoln. 2012. How academicbiologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE 7. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0036240.

Fleet, C. M., M. F. N. Rosser, R. A. Zufall, M. C. Pratt, T. S. Feldman,and P. P. Lemons. 2006. Hiring criteria in biology departments ofacademic institutions. BioScience 56:430–436.

Fox, J. 2012. Can blogging change how ecologists share ideas? In eco-nomics, it already has. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5:74–78.

Groffman, P. M., C. Stylinski, M. C. Nisbet, C. M. Duarte, R. Jordan,A. Burgin, M. A. Previtali, and J. Coloso. 2010. Restarting the con-versation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:284–291.

Hansen, A. 2011. Communication, media and environment: Towardsreconnecting research on the production, content and social impli-cations of environmental communication. International Communi-cation Gazette 73:7–25.

Jensen, P., J.-B. Rouquier, P. Kreimer, and Y. Croissant. 2008. Scientistswho engage with society perform better academically. Science andPublic Policy 35:527–541.

Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, S. West, and J. Hornisher. 2002. Slow-movingjournals hinder conservation efforts. Nature 420:16.

Lach, D., P. List, B. Steel, and B. Shindler. 2003. Advocacy and credibilityof ecological scientists in resource decision-making: a regional study.BioScience 53:170–178.

Linton, R. 2013. Confronting challenges in graduate education: Whatis the NSF role? Grad Edge 2:1–4. Council of Graduate Schools,www.cgsnet.org.

Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a newsocial contract for science. Science 279:491–497.

Marshall, J. 2013. Kickstart your research. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:4857–4859.

McBride, B. B., C. A. Brewer, M. Bricker, and M. Machura. 2011. Trainingthe next generation of renaissance scientists: the GK–12 ecologists,educators, and schools program at the University of Montana. Bio-Science 61:466–476.

McDade, L. A., D. R. Maddison, R. Guralnick, H. A. Piwowar, M. L.Jameson, K. M. Helgen, P. S. Herendeen, A. Hill, and M. L. Vis.2011. Biology needs a modern assessment system for professionalproductivity. BioScience 61:619–625.

Messinger, O., S. Schuette, J. Hodder, and A. Shanks. 2009. Bridgingthe gap: spanning the distance between high school and collegeeducation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:221–222.

Meyer, J., P. Frumhoff, S. Hamburg, and C. De La Rosa. 2010. Above thedin but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:299–305.

Milliman, J. D. 1996. Integrating research and education with pub-lic outreach at coastal laboratories. Biological Bulletin 190:278–285.

Morgan, S., J. Curtis, and A. Vincent. 2008. Axes of excellence: a rolefor students as community-engaged scholars. Frontiers in Ecologyand the Environment 6:105–106.

Newing, H. 2010. Interdisciplinary training in environmental conser-vation: definitions, progress and future directions. EnvironmentalConservation 37:410–418.

Nisbet, M. C., and D. A. Scheufele. 2009. What’s next for science com-munication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Ameri-can Journal of Botany 96:1767–1778.

Osmond, D. L., et al. 2010. The role of interface organizations in sciencecommunication and understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 8:306–313.

Pace, M. L., et al. 2010. Communicating with the public: opportunitiesand rewards for individual ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 8:292–298.

Piwowar, H. 2013. Altmetrics: value all research products. Nature493:159.

Quimby, J. L., N. D. Seyala, and J. L. Wolfson. 2007. Social cognitive pre-dictors of interest in environmental science: recommendations forenvironmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education38:43–52.

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014

Kuehne et al. 11

Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant.2006. Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidi-rectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interface and sharing.Ecology and Society 11:4.

Salguero-Gomez, R., M. D. Whiteside, J. M. Talbot, and W. F. Laurance.2009. After “eco” comes “service.” Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 7:277–278.

Shanley, P., and C. Lopez. 2009. Out of the loop: why research rarelyreaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotrop-ica 41:535–544.

Smith, B., N. Baron, C. English, H. Galindo, E. Goldman, K. McLeod,M. Miner, and E. Neeley. 2013. COMPASS: navigating the rulesof scientific engagement. PLoS Biology 11. DOI: 10.1371/jour-nal.pbio.1001552.

Suleski, J., and M. Ibaraki. 2010. Scientists are talking, butmostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research repre-sented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science 19:115–125.

Weigold, M. F. 2001. Communicating science: a review of the literature.Science Communication 23:164–193.

Conservation BiologyVolume 00, No. 0, 2014