Processes of quality science communication

Many interesting things have emerged through this work. Some have been new ideas for me (such as the economics of science communication), some are long-standing issues (such as the diversity of aims of our work).

The idea of what constitutes good quality science communication is something that we all think about (who doesn't want to do good or excellent work?), but as far as I know we don't have any agreed standards. Through the ScoPPES work it's clear that there is a concern of homogenising our work and losing creativity by developing frameworks and standards. I'm not so sure about this. Many creative sectors agree standards. Is it about finding the right ones?

Through the work of the RCUK Catalysts programme, Rick Holliman and his colleagues at the Open University and in collaborating schools developed a framework for public engagement with research: the Ps of Public Engagement with Research. They are posed as a series of questions to help researchers plan their public engagement work. I've tweaked them a little for science communication / public engagement more broadly:

People - Who could participate? What expertise is needed to participate? How will participation be recognised?
Processes - how will you meet the needs of everyone in the project? What governs the process of engagement?
Purposes - what are you trying to achieve? What is the aim of your intervention?
Participation - how will you ensure that everyone's participation is valued? Are there any ethical issues you need to address?
Performance - how will you monitor and evaluate your performance? How does your work build on previous science communication?
Politics - what are the wider contexts you need to be aware of?
Preparedness - is everyone ready to engage? What skills and competencies are required? What has happened before in this area and can we learn from it?

If we turn these from questions to statements, I think we can see the beginning of a quality framework:
People - the people involved are well identified and their needs understood.
Processes - the intervention meets the needs of the public, and other partners / collaborators.
Purposes - the aim of the work is clearly stated.
Participation - the work is undertaken ethically with everyone's participation valued.
Performance - the work is evaluated and findings shared.
Politics - the work takes wider contexts into consideration.
Preparedness - the people involved have the appropriate skills and competencies to participate. The work builds on previous activities.

During our conversations earlier in the year, one concern that arose was about assessment of science communication activity. If there were to be some form of accreditation of science communication activities who would be able to assess both the format and the content? The above framework misses out any reference to the representation of the science and a commitment to representing the science honestly.

Is this a useful starting point? What else is missing? Or is this something that we shouldn't be trying to develop?

I'll be discussing this at the BIG Event next week. If you're there, come along and join in the session. If not, I'd love to hear your thoughts here, or through a direct message.