To listen to the episode on your favorite podcast app, click here.

 

Mary-Ann: Hello, Danielle

Danielle: Hi Mary-Ann

Mary-Ann: And hello podcast listeners! Welcome to This Study Shows. We are back for another special episode. And let me explain what this one is all about. Earlier this year, we released a special episode called Communicating COVID-19, because we knew it was important for This Study Shows to respond to the story of the moment and talk about the impact of science communication at this unprecedented time. Now, our podcast is all about how research matters and how it has to be shared. Accurate, thoughtful science communication has never been more vital. But the Coronavirus pandemic is not - I think you'll probably agree - the only story that is defining this year, because out on the streets and conversations across social media, we've seen a global response to racial violence and discrimination.

Danielle: Yeah, I agree. I mean, this is the moment of reckoning isn't it for so many industries? And so we wanted to take this opportunity to really look at systems of oppression and bias in the world of science communication, and hear from the people working hard to create serious change. We believe that communication is one of the most powerful tools a researcher can have. But not everyone has equal opportunity to tell a story of science or to access these stories. So that's why we decided to record a special episode all about the power of inclusive science communication. And it's a massive subject, Mary-Ann...

Mary-Ann:  Yeah, inclusive science communication in 60 minutes. Ready, steady, go! No, to be fair, this is the start of a much longer conversation and hopefully, you know, a lifetime of work for all of us. And but we have an incredible panel of four people here to help us get to grips with it. So joining us to discuss today's inclusive science communication, we have Dr. Sunshine Menezes. She's the Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Communication at the University of Rhode Island and the executive director of the Metcalf Institute.

Danielle: We're also joined by Sibusiso Biyela, a columnist and science communicator. And he's based in Johannesburg, South Africa,

Mary-Ann: Professor Chris Jackson's here. He's a geologist at Imperial College London, and he's the founder of the nonprofit preprint server Earth ArXiv. He's also one of this year's Christmas lecturers for the Royal Institution of Great Britain, following in the most esteemed footsteps of our very own Professor Daniel George, who hosted those lectures in 2014.

Danielle: I did indeed, yes. I remember it like it was just yesterday, actually. And finally, we have Lewis Hou. He's a specialist in interdisciplinary education and cultural participation and he's the founder of the social enterprise Science Cèilidh, which is based in Scotland, fusing traditional arts, community, and science. Wow, what a panel! Welcome, everyone. I'd like to kick off things by asking what attracted each of you to the field of science communication? And Lewis, I'd like to start with you, please. Because you wanted to make sure you weren't just sort of preaching to the same old people. But you want to try and reach new audiences, didn't you?

Lewis: Yeah, absolutely. I'm delighted to be here. And when I first started in science communication it was at the Edinburgh science festival, and I had no idea why I signed up for it, to be honest. But I really, really enjoyed the experience. And there's obviously very young people, they're very hands-on...but after a few years of doing that, alongside my degree, I really noticed this kind of sense of ...it’s the same people who come along to these types of workshops. And not that that wasn't great, but it was the white middle-class families that were very much already converted to science, as you say. And so I think over time, I was really interested in another facet of my life where I was I was playing fiddle and very interested in music and dance and this real spirit, where it's not about being an expert, it's not about being the converted, not being the best dancer, or the best singer or musician, it's about that participation and I was really fascinated by how we could bring that spirit into science in this kind of more diverse way. And over time, that's been a journey to thinking about diversity inclusion, and now into more specifically decolonizing and anti-racism.

Danielle: And Sunshine, I mean, you're very keen on making sure that we reach the non-experts as well, aren't you? And sort of diversifying the conversation?

Sunshine: Yes, I am. And, you know, I actually came into science communication kind of by mistake. Originally, I was getting a Ph.D. in oceanography and was spending a lot of time by myself in dark rooms, doing my analyses and I realized that that was not the highest best use of me as a human! So I got this fellowship, where I was working with a congressman in the US capital and had this kind of trial-by-fire experience of trying to be a science communicator without any training and realized how bad I was at it. And one thing led to another and I ultimately became executive director of Metcalf Institute, where science communication is everything that we think about. And then my thinking about inclusive science communication really evolved from some of my own personal experiences in the healthcare system and seeing how absolutely differently people would experience that system based on the various privileges that they had. And so my personal experience really inspired me to push for inclusive and equitable communication a lot more.

Danielle: Sibusiso is that what happened to you in terms of a sort of a personal inspiration?

Sibusiso: Well, for me, it started out...out of greed! When I got to go to university, I wanted to, I had to choose some sort of science degree, but I didn't know what to choose. From high school, I enjoyed all the sciences that I did, but I settled on physics and chemistry. And going ahead, I realized that if I choose one undergraduate degree, then I'll have to stick with that science for the rest of my life. And I did not want to do that! I wanted to talk about all the sciences, I wanted to do all the science and I saw that what I enjoyed doing the most is talking about science to other people.  On a personal level, it has felt like I was the most myself when I was doing that. And in terms of inclusivity, what I've learned over the years is I want everyone to have the skills of science too, to sort of remove this veneer of science, that it's, it's difficult, and it's the only people who should care about it are the people who are doing it. And one of the great ways I found to include more people has been trying to change the language in which I communicate just to get more people into it. Not because they don't understand it when it's spoken about in English, but because when it's spoken about in your own indigenous language, you are more likely to feel like you own it. You feel the sort of ownership and pride in understanding something in your own language. So that's, that's been my journey so far.

Danielle: What a journey. Amazing.

Mary-Ann: Yeah. We'll talk a little bit more about your adventures in languages other than English or Afrikaans shortly. Professor Chris Jackson, when we're talking about inclusive science, communication, but should we define our terms? I mean, what is it that we're actually talking about? What, what makes science communication, diverse or inclusive?

Chris: I think it's quite simple. I think it's just not talking to other scientists! And that just opens up the rest of the world who aren't scientists, of course. And that can go all the way from, you know, kids who are, you know, just learning to crawl and kind of wondering why something's hot and something's cold all the way through to, you know, palliative care and people learning about, you know, things at the end of their life. I mean, there's, there's a whole... there's a whole range of people there who aren't taking part in science and are excluded or don't feel like they can be included. And so that's how I would term inclusive science. It's taking it out to beyond people... and I think as well, it goes across the field. So you know if a geoscientist talks to a physicist, is that really, really inclusive? Maybe? Because it's still a bit of a club. It's still a little bit of a gang, isn't it of, you know, of training degree level, or whatever it is. So I like to think of it as getting beyond that, and into the hands of, you know, I don't like the term laypeople but, it's getting it to people who maybe didn't think they had a share in science.

Mary-Ann: And what about you, Sunshine? I mean, you established the Inclusive Scicomm Symposium, what's the focus? What's the mission?

Sunshine: We just want to completely rebrand science communication, that's all. So you know! We have come to - fairly recently - come to a point where we're calling this a movement because that is the term that feels most accurate for what is happening right now. We want to help science communicators and scientists and various public see science - in the ways that Chris just described - see science as something that is relevant to their lives. But we - specifically - want to make science communication based in, grounded in, inclusion, and equity, and intersectionality. You know, we want to get past this idea that inclusion and equity are things you add on at a later date. And make sure that marginalized voices are centered in science communication, in ways that they haven't been for, maybe, ever! Depending on, you know, where you are, and the particular circumstances. So yeah, I mean, we want to just completely change this. And the symposium itself is designed to create a space where people who are doing this work or really want to learn about it, can come together, share what we know, across disciplines, across sectors, across the various methods that we use so that we're not all remaking the wheel all the time. So yeah, it's about building community, and sharing what we know. And learning.

Mary-Ann: There was another term that you just used, which I think might be helpful for some of our listeners to just define that as well, which is ‘intersectionality’. It comes up again, and again, in these conversations about decolonizing science, it comes up in conversations about making science and SciComm inclusive. What do we mean by intersectionality? And intersectional identity?

Sunshine: Right, great question. So this term was coined by Kimberly Crenshaw, who is an American legal scholar. And the idea is that people's identities can combine to compound the kinds of experiences that they have in their lives. So a black woman, for example, is experiencing racism or may experience racism and sexism at various points in her life. So not just one, which is bad enough, but multiple challenges that need to be dealt with. And there are various ways that this happens. But the point is that when you have these intersectional identities, these various ways that your, your very existence, kind of presents in the world, that it can complicate, and, and make more challenging the ways that you engage with others and more importantly, that others engage with you. So it is a really foundational concept that has been built on by many other people since then, but I want to make sure that Kimberly Crenshaw is noted as the person that really articulated this so brilliantly for the first time.

Mary-Ann: So different aspects of your identity bring different bias, prejudice, sense of exclusion, sense of entitlement, perhaps, and privilege into the picture? We can't just kind of pick one label and go “oh, this is the issue”.

Sunshine: Exactly.

Mary-Ann: “This is who I am, or this is who they are.”

Sunshine: That's right. We tend to oversimplify these things, and intersectionality is a way of interrogating those oversimplifications.

Danielle: So a term you hear quite a lot is sort of ‘informal science learning’ as well, how is it different? Or is it different? Inclusive science communication and informal science learning?

Lewis: I think….I mean, people use different definitions. ‘Informal’ very often is used to kind of…  as a catch-all for anything that's out with schools, for example. But I think there's a more philosophical question in that, you know, is, as Sunshine says, is inclusive science communication, a different thing? Or is it embedded? Should all informal science communication be inclusive? And I think the answer has to be yes. And, you know, to say that point around intersectionality. You know, there's a great quote around, “there's no such thing as a single issue because we don't live in single-issue lives”. And I think that's really, really important in terms of that context, is that, you know, very often when we get critics or people who are decolonizing is that, you know, well, “education should be neutral”. You know, the UK Government has passed a whole set of legislation about, you know, not politicizing issues. But, you know, by being ‘neutral’, that is a political position, there is no such thing as neutrality within education. And so, you know, it is a privilege to argue that you can be neutral. And I think that's really important that when we consider that within informal science learning and science communication is that if we don't, you know...we accept that we live in a racist, misogynistic society, and we benefit or privilege from that in different ways in our different intersections. If we don't address those stories that we're telling in the context, it is not about erasing history, it is about adding on. It's about providing that context that has been missed. And if we don't do that, then I think there's a reflection for us as a sector as to, you know, can we talk about inclusion in that way? And I think we have to, we have to see personally as fundamental.

Mary-Ann: Sunshine, how do you see the relationship between informal science learning and inclusive cycle?

Sunshine: Well, I'll add an interesting point to what Lewis just said, which I totally agree with. I am doing a landscape study of inclusive science communication right now, just wrapping it up with my collaborator, Katie Canfield. And the idea of this study was to get a sense of what early leaders in this movement are doing; kind of what their motivations are, their challenges, you know, pressure points to really stimulate or inhibit this movement. And one of the most important findings is that, as I alluded to, before, there are these tremendous silos between different approaches toward science communication. So for this study, we defined science communication in its broadest sense. So any effort to engage people in any kind of conversation about any STEM topic - science, technology, engineering, or math topic - counts as science communication in this study. But what we found is that the people who are working in ‘informal science learning’, which as Lewis noted, tend to be people who are maybe doing museum-based work, or after school programs, or you know, something like that, STEM club, stuff like that, see themselves as very separate from the people who are doing science communication, say, via social media, or via science festivals, or whatever. So there are all of these significant silos that really restrict the degree to which we can all avoid duplicating our effort. And I think that's a really important point, especially as this inclusive science communication sphere is gaining momentum. We need everybody to be part of this conversation so that we can advance it as quickly as possible.

Mary-Ann: It's something that's come up in conversation between you and me, Danielle, as well about your work. You're a professor of engineering. And so many times I've heard you say, “science communication and informal sharing of my science is not separate to, it's not an adjunct to my work. You know, it runs through it, like a kind of a cord woven through, that is part of your core work.

Danielle: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I don't see it as an addition to my job, it's very much a part of my job, as a scientist and engineer, to communicate my research, communicate my science, in an accessible and inclusive way, with everybody, anyone who wants to listen to me, I’ll be talking to them! But there are barriers to doing that. And I, I see those and feel those barriers in my work. Sibusiso, you must see barriers quite a lot in your science communication, what are the key barriers for you, in your work?

Sibusiso: For me, it's quite related, looking at the barriers, and the idea of d informality and also inclusivity as well. What creates a barrier in South Africa is the fact that formal education - when it comes to science and other aspects, and subjects - is already failing. I count myself lucky having the understanding of science that I do have, most of which I didn't get from school. And I was very lucky to have a lot of people around me, including my mother, who encouraged me to read a lot, as much as I could, just to get perspectives that I would not get anywhere else. And for that, I am forever grateful. Love you, mom! So the formal education system has failed in South Africa for historical reasons that I elaborate on in, in my open notebook article, which, yes, a lot has changed in the past 25 years in South Africa since we've had a democratic government, part of which has been the education system. But the failure that it caused, the power of the apartheid system and the education system that it created is that the teachers who are trained, who learned science in that system are the ones who are required to teach science to kids today. I mean a lot of violence was dealt out by this system, part of it being educational. And so we don't have much of a choice in terms of instilling great science communication in South Africans, especially black South Africans, we don't have a choice except great informal science communication, right? So the barrier has been that there's a lot of science, great science, journalism, and science communication happening in South Africa but the issue is, it's problematic when you try to communicate that science to an audience that either doesn't understand part of it, or is averse even to the idea of science, finds it untrustworthy. So, for me, at the beginning trying to start out as a science journalist I was quite disappointed with that sort of results that I'm trying to communicate science to very smart people who distrust it, or who don't trust themselves to understand it, because part of that system - that system that I talked about before - is that when it comes to science and technology, a lot of kids are told that “don't worry about that, if it's difficult for you if science or math is difficult for you, it's not for you, it's for the white people.” But the colloquial thing that said is ‘izinto zabelungu’ that's ‘it's things of the whites’, that's what science and technology is. So having that mindset and trying to talk to someone about science, and they find it untrustworthy for that reason. I mean, there's been a lot of news happening in South Africa, especially with, with vaccine trials happening at the moment, a lot of distrust from young people, very young, capable people, very smart people on social media having incredible doubts, and all sorts of conspiracy theories that they have. So the barrier has been that distrust in science, that feeling that we don't own science. That barrier that requires us in South Africa to conduct science communication informally outside the education system for that reason. So yeah, just to touch on what Sunshine mentioned. So there's sort of an intersectionality, between the informality and it being a barrier. I mean, using informality to tackle the barrier of the poor education system that we've had.

Mary-Ann: Chris, do you want to come in?

Chris: Yeah, I was gonna say, I think one barrier to all of this is the fact it's not valued by some of the reward systems we currently have in academia, at least, which is the field I'm most familiar with. I mean, it's, you raise some money, you write a flashy paper, that's kind of valued more than people who were able to go out and engage the public, who were the very taxpayers whose money we would then leverage to do our research. And that, for me, is one of the most confusing things. That clever people do some very dumb things sometimes, in that they place value in the wrong places. So you know, the idea of doing science communication in your spare time, as opposed to what you said Danielle, of it being an integral part of your very existence. What you're talking about, and a lot of people are talking about, is a self-driven passion for wanting to tell people about things which are awesome, right? That's why we do it, because we bore our friends in the pub, and we talk to anybody at the bus stop who will listen to us about whatever we care about. And we do that anyway. And you know the failure, the inability of academic systems to codify that into the reward system and actually see that as part of the as part of...is as important as doing the work itself, I think.

Mary-Ann: Is that not linked to the notion of science being a particular method of knowledge that is privileged and exclusive? That is part of its prestige, and power, that it's not accessible to everybody? And if people like yourselves are trying to deconstruct that, people start to feel...people within the ivory tower, go “hang on a minute, you're asking me to give up things that I value, and I find incredibly important. These are the things that shore up who I am, this is my status!”

Chris: But those people are the same people who are complaining that there's not enough funding for x, y, and z that they care about! And if they don't go out and tell and portray to the public and make their science valid and relevant and translate the bits of it which aren't super hard. Well, they take the super hard bit and if they can't translate that into something which can inform policy or could make somebody - like Sibusiso said - you know, believe in the science of vaccine trials, then that's the failure of the scientist, I would argue. And that's why we should prioritize people who can engage the public and policymakers in sciences, I think that the same people who moan about the one thing are the same who probably think they should be locked up in their labs, doing this amazing science and be paid for it. And I don't think that's right. Sorry, I think that's a bit of a moan, but I strongly believe that!

Mary-Ann: It taps in, doesn't it, Lewis, to the idea that when we're talking about making science inclusive or inclusive SciComm, often the conversation ends up being about access, how to reach an audience, and, you know, the kind of ‘build it, and they will come’. And they're going “but it's free, it's an open-access piece of, you know, information...so they just choose not to come? They mustn't be interested in science, those people!” How do we unpack that? How do we actually progress to something that is more equitable?

Lewis:  I think that really hits the nail on the head in terms of the big, big inclusive problem. And that's... it took me a long time...we've been involved in this action research project around this idea of ‘cultural democracy’. And it really looks at this question of ‘whose expertise is valued?’ And I think what we just discussed is, of course, academic research. It’s a certain type of knowing which, you know, we value and I value; science. But I think there is something around...also it is hierarchical, is intrinsically institutional. And, you know, and I think a lot of our work...we work a lot with researchers, of course, and we're research-based, but our tagline, and we always think of it, is ‘we make researchers accessible to communities and not the other way around’. Our job, as being out with the institutions as an intermediary organization, is to work with communities. And we know enough of academia, that we can work and support the communities and develop the projects that they want to do and explore the science and questions about the world that they want to explore on their terms. And we bring in the researchers as needed. And I think there needs to be more work around this sense of, you know, we talk a lot about two-way public engagement, two-way science communication as how often do researchers... sometimes it is a mind shift change where you say that people are not empty vessels, they have expertise of themselves, if that's lived experience of mental health issues, or just the general lived experience, which might be causing some of these barriers in terms of the distrust of science, because historically, science has not been equitable for them. And they have an experience that we need to also value as well. And I think there is a conversation to be had within academia, about how we truly value that as, as a two-way process and appreciate the research and expertise that scientists have, of course, but at the same time, you know, really appreciate that communities themselves have lived experience, which is valuable, and even if it's not academic, not published, but it's important. And I think, you know, we're getting to a point now, where we're accepting different ways of knowing and action research models, that are not necessarily the standard academic way. And I think we need to embed that a bit more within our science, communication practice.

Chris: Just want to jump in there, I think just to qualify my points as well, I think academics - and I've been guilty of this - think research only occurs in universities! And they forget that there must be like 1% of science is conducted in universities, right? And the 99% is conducted by research facilities, governmental organizations, and whatever. So you're right. I mean even shifting that narrative is really important. You know, who's standing up on the stage at the Royal Institution Christmas lectures or who's standing up on the, you know, with the government, in the advisory panel, you know, where they come from also sends a signal, I think, about trustworthiness. And society's relationship to the science that's been almost forced upon them, in some cases, recently,

Mary-Ann: Has anyone got a good example of, of actually how we, we do shift that perception of where valuable knowledge can be found, where we can integrate that into the more traditional methods of valuing science knowledge?

Lewis: Yeah, I think a lot of it in terms of projects, it's about approach, it's about relationships. And that's hard because academia doesn't give you that time, to spend time to develop relationships with communities that might not lead to somewhere that is, you know, where you're valued because of your research, you know. Some of our work with the new Scots, so kind of people with diverse migration backgrounds, very often from Syria, for example, in Scotland, has really kind of almost like skirted that line between just volunteerism, civic activism, and eventually public engagement. But as an example, you know, we volunteer with this and set up the steering group within Edinburgh for the new Scots and it took about two or three years before science was ever really, you know, we identified a really clear need, where science was the answer. And in every other situation, it was more about cultural exchange. It was about, you know, language learning is about music and dance and just building relationships with this community. And then over time, it's like “oh, actually, some of our Syrian men have engineering backgrounds. And actually, you know, they're really struggling with English at the moment, and really working hard to develop their English and actually would really value the opportunity to meet engineers to understand what's going on in Scotland, compare what's happened, in their experiences, understand a bit more of the technical language as well.” And so it was an interesting kind of project where it took about two or three years of this kind of just know each other, and trust-building before we got to a stage where, you know, it would fit it into a classic public engagement agenda, if you like, because we can then involve the researchers in universities and industries. And, and for us, you know, it didn't ever need to get to that position. But it was good that we could help to get it to that point. And I think maybe there's a question is “how can we, as a sector, leave ourselves open for these types of matchmaking that's led by the community and can take a long time. And very often funding just doesn't allow that to happen?”

Mary-Ann: Yeah, agreed. Sunshine, you want to come in?

Sunshine: Yeah, please. So “hear hear!” on the funding problem, that is definitely one of the barriers. You know, funding just doesn't accommodate...our funding timelines don't accommodate the relationship building that is a hallmark of inclusive science communication. But I also wanted to offer another example. So I am thinking of the work of Monica Ramirez Andreotta, who is a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Arizona. And so she's interested in environmental monitoring around Superfund sites, you know, these legacy polluted areas in the US that have been identified as places that needed to be cleaned up so that people could actually live there and be healthy. So nearby, she created a collaboration with a community that lives near a Superfund site in Arizona, and they wanted to be sure that they could actually grow vegetables, you know, they could have gardens safely. So the research was this co-created thing from the very beginning, where a community identified their needs, and their research questions and, in collaboration, Monica's team and the community said, “Okay, well, let's craft a research project that is both satisfying the reward structures in academia per Christopher's note, and is serving the community and not doing something for the community, but with the community”. And they've been just massively successful with this effort, I'm just so impressed by the work that they've done. And, and in every stage of the process, by the way, not only in the beginning, but throughout conducting the research and, and doing the analyses and, and thinking about how to disseminate the results. So there are examples of this, you know, community-based or community-engaged participatory research happening out there, but not as many of them as we wish there would be.

Mary-Ann: Tell us a little more about your work in South Africa. I mean, on Twitter, you are self-labeled as ‘the decolonize science guy’. And I think we're circling around this idea aren’t we? Talking about who science is for and the potential of SciCommers or scientists to tunnel vision means that we define who science is for, who it benefits, who we share it with, who it belongs to, and who's producing it as well, I guess?

Sibusiso: Okay, so I'm going to sound like a villain because we're talking about how science communication, for me, has been about a greed thing, that I couldn't decide which science I wanted to do. Another aspect is being sneaky. So, so my philosophy of science communication is that it would be best if I can do it in such a way that the audience that I'm communicating it with doesn't know that they are being communicated science at right? Sometimes I find myself sitting with friends talking science stuff, and before you know it, at the end of 10 minutes, they've learned something! And then you let them know that it's science right? But if you start off talking science like “Okay, now I'm talking about science!” a lot of people switch off. They don't want to be back in class, they don't want to hear about things about chemistry or physics or, or whatever. So that's been another approach that I tried with decolonization, the first approach being starting with talking about science in isiZulu, I thought it would be easy if I can just switch to isiZulu when talking to my friends or family or anyone else about science. But the issue is, if you're talking about any conversation, could be sports or anything else, and you're speaking in your own indigenous language, it's quite easy. But when it comes to science and technology, then there's that switch, that code switch that happens, and it's inevitable. And I don't want that to happen. I just want science to be talked about, as you would talk about anything.

Mary-Ann: Is it because isiZulu doesn't have the words to describe, kind of ‘modern research terms’? What's the challenge of talking about science in isiZulu, or, I guess, other indigenous languages?

Sibusiso: So the issue is that it doesn't have the vocabulary to talk about modern scientific terms, simple things that maybe 50 years ago used to be complex to talk about. Something like DNA, or even dinosaurs. I mean, looking at those two things, if you talk about them, you don't even have to spend more than 10 seconds explaining what each of them are. I mean, it's in the community, everyone knows what they are. But the issue is, if you have to talk about those things, in essence, then you have to spend a couple of minutes trying to explain what those things are in isiZulu. And at first, it was a disadvantage, because it would slow me down. But then it's given me an opportunity to realize that even in English, people don't really understand what those things are. Everyone thinks they know what a dinosaur is, until you really look into it. And it's problematic. So yes, it is... it doesn't have a lot of modern scientific terms to, to just to sort of carry on a conversation about those things. But I've seen that as an opportunity to over-explain dinosaurs or explain DNA, over-explain the solar system, over-explain simple scientific terms that people wouldn't usually admit that they don't know in English, but if I'm speaking to them in isiZulu, and explaining why I'm coming up with a certain term for... for a scientific term...I am coming up with an isiZulu term for it and sort of try to explain the reasoning behind that. I sneakily explained the scientific term to someone whilst it seems like I'm just explaining it as a new term. So that’s the sneaky part that I've found, which I am seeing as an advantage. And in terms of decolonization, it's also showing I'm also using decolonization as a way to disabuse people of the notion that the history of science is full of brilliant white men. Yes, they are there. But there's a lot of other people there as well. By decentering that narrative, through speaking about science in an indigenous language, in South African indigenous language, I also tried to highlight the contributions of minorities or everyone else who isn't part of the narrative that we associate with who can be a scientist, who has been a scientist in the past. So yes, that's, that's, that's the sneaky part that I was trying to explain. So yeah, in terms of decolonization, and using a different language, that's my experience with those two things.

Mary-Ann: I was struck by a tweet that you pinned that says, ‘nothing is as lazy as dismissing decolonization of science out of hand with the idea that science is apolitical and a perfect way to understand the universe. It shows an ignorance of the history of science.’ And I thought that that kind of pretty much sums it up. That if you dismiss it and go ‘there's no problem with this’ then basically, you perpetuate the problems, the gaps, the inequality.

Sibusiso: Yeah, yeah, the issue has been that there's been great movements on Twitter over the past...since lockdown, a lot of people are finding more time to have conversations online. So a lot more people are able to find each other online. There's, #blackinacademia, #blackinscience, #blackinphysiology, and all those other things. And part of that movement has been talking about decolonization. So something else that's happened, I was quite angry on that day of that tweet, I should know better not to tweet angry! But that went well, in that one time. But it was a response to some tweets, which were responding to decolonization, that if you mentioned the decolonization of science, some people will reply with “Oh, decolonization is anti-science! Decolonization? Oh, you're tweeting from your cell phone that uses technology on the internet? But he wants to decolonize science?!”...Like, okay, the guy has clearly misunderstood decolonization. You need to decolonize your own mind! In a sense, it's like people who say they are not political. They clearly are, but they don't know. It's...it’s...I don't know how to disabuse people of those notions that they are victims of grand narratives. And I tweeted that, and it got a lot of traction. So I was very happy that a lot of people at least agree with me on Twitter, it's not just facing a lot of trolls. So I mean, I also tweet after that, that half the time spent on decolonization is explaining to some people that science isn't...or more specifically, it's too much effort is explaining what decolonization isn't, instead of talking about what it actually is. And the people are holding us back, taking a lot of that energy away from those discussions. So, yeah.

Mary-Ann: For our listeners who might be getting up to speed on this concept of decolonization? Can we have a kind of quick summary of what it is and isn't?

Sibusiso: Decolonization is very simply the idea - and the discussions around that idea - that science wasn't created in the West. I know, it's a fact that most people know, in 2020. But it's still a notion that's difficult for a lot of people to unlearn. Decolonization is the idea that if you google a scientist, it shouldn't just show white old men in lab coats. Decolonization of science is that there are many, many ideas in science, not just...the scientific method itself is universal - Yes. But the questions that are asked by an undiverse group of people, weakens science. And decolonization of science is, is the very cliche idea...the cliche-sounding idea that there is strength in diversity. And if there's a diversity of ideas, then science is all for the better. That's just part of what decolonization of science is. There's books and, and courses that explain this, but in the simplest way, that's how I can explain it. Thanks for the opportunity!

Danielle: What about science centers? And museums? What's their role? Because they’re a very sort of a traditional environment for public engagement work. Do you think they do that well? Do you think they sort of perpetuate this issue with...the sort of decolonization or not decolonization and that sort of narrative? Do you think they bring together people who wouldn't necessarily get involved with science or do you think they just sort of preach to the converted already?

Sibusiso: In South Africa, science centers have started to try to sort of do that as well as museums. I've been consulted on a new museum display that is very specific to decolonizing the history of paleontology in South Africa. Specifically paleoanthropology in South Africa. That it wasn't just some, some old white guys from the UK coming to South Africa to find fossils, the fossils, and artefacts that are here in South Africa. It’s promoting the idea that they didn't do that alone. There's lots of field technicians who are not recognized for their work; skills that even the chief scientist themselves didn't have.

Danielle: Yeah, Lewis.

Lewis: So we do a lot of work in the cultural sphere now, and including museums, as well as working in science centers on the more recent projects. And I guess, I mean, to be honest, I think we're behind. I think museums are way further ahead in terms of the dialogue, in terms of some of the structural issues. It doesn't mean, they're getting necessarily more diverse audiences and they're getting it right all the time. Absolutely not. But in terms of the conversation, in terms of decolonizing, thinking about knowledge hierarchies, thinking about how the structures of paying freelancers, paying organizations, paying community groups directly, to get involved reimbursing for their time, the broader expertise, I think museums actually have are, generally speaking, further ahead. And, in fact, you know, one of my roles is with the anti-racist educator in Scotland. It's just been announced today that I'm joining as one of the steering groups to look at slavery, and the Transatlantic Trade and, and consultation around that. And I think there is a bit more of an awareness around this ‘of, with, by’ which is a big movement in and from the States originally, about these more equitable community partnerships, and how to get community groups onto boards, for example. So it isn't just project-based, it is structural embeddedness, that I think academia is way behind. And that's, you know, that's not the fault of academics, it's because of academia. And the way - as Chris was talking about - it's, you know, incentivized. And so, I think, generally speaking, museums are further ahead, at least in the conversation. And I think science centers are, at least in the UK, and I think it will be very different but you know… I’m on, there's an equity at Excite...so Excite is a kind of a European network for science centers. And they have been looking specifically around inclusion, diversity and slowly into decolonizing. And, you know, and the time is now, you know, I think with Black Lives Matter and COVID has really given that a moment. So it does feel a wee bit different from the conversations beforehand.

Danielle: Chris, what do you think about the Royal Institution? I mean, I feel like it is challenging the status quo in terms of Public Engagement now. And I know there's sort of 195 years of history and not very many females, you are the first-ever black person to present. What do you think that says about the establishment?

Chris: I think there are growing pains, aren't there, for these very old societies like the Royal Society Institution. I think they have this deep history, and they feel that their current identity is in, you know, it can't separate from its deep history, otherwise, it will become something else. But quite frankly, I think some of those places need to become something else, because I think the demands of society about what they need is not a... you know, this big whiz-bang thing where somebody discovers an element for the first time. It's more about, you know, the role of science across all of our lives. Now, we've done some of the fundamentals. And there are fundamentals to be looked at about how science is unknowingly in our lives, and how science is already dictating how we do things in technology that's built on scientists starting to dictate how we relate to each other. So I think those institutions, those edifices, need to recognize that their function has changed. I think one thing that's harder to tackle, perhaps related to that point is where they are, because I think a lot of these places are in inaccessible places for the majority of people, and they are too costly. So you can have amazingly well thought out and very equitably put together exhibitions in universities, but it's in some very bourgeois bits of Central London. And it costs a lot of money for people who even live in London to get there. Forget somebody lives in Derbyshire, where I'm from, going there, and being inspired. So I think there's, you know, I think there's, I think there are lots of other things that they need to do in addition to changing their kind of modus operandi, the way they conduct themselves. It's also almost physically removing themselves from where they have been historically, that's hard, and it's actually impossible. Maybe they don't need to do it. But I think what those institutions could do is provide more things that are online and take their science and the importance of science into schools in these more remote or physically, you know, geographically more distant areas. So I think that's it. Couple of the issues that we're facing, and I think they're aware of it. But there's a tension there between the progressives in those societies and those institutions and the kind of - how do we describe them politely? - The people with more romantic ideals of the past!

Danielle: Yeah, everybody's nodding. So we know exactly what you mean.

Mary-Ann: It's just this, does this bring us back, though, to the idea of who thinks science is for them? Who does science belong to? Who will inevitably just be a consumer of an end-product rather than a producer of scientific knowledge?

Sunshine: Right? Well, that is the million-dollar question. And I think it's everything we've been talking about here, which is why it's so hard, you know. Like, we are talking about systemic change. And in multiple systems, by the way, it's not like we can even say, ‘we only need to fix academia, which is no small thing. We need to fix academia, we need to fix these, these public-serving institutions who, as Chris just said, you know, have these very problematic histories that still influence their present and in every way. So yeah, we have systemic change that we need, we also just have these foundational skills, by the way, that a lot of people working in science communication, again, regardless of the way that they're doing that science, communication, lack. So there's all kinds of training that is offered for science communication all over the place these days. I mean, certainly, I'm more familiar with the US, but science communication training is ever more common in the US. And it's in some... there are some groups like Metcalf institute that do this regularly, and, and many others. And then there are other groups that just, you know, are like, ‘hey, this time we are at, you know, university x, and we need some science communication training. So we're gonna do a little one-off program.’ And that's wonderful. The challenge is that, until and unless these competencies and skills and kind of broader perspectives that inform inclusive and equitable communication, until those things are taught as part of these trainings, how are more people going to learn them? So we have this, this real like, bottleneck. And in terms of broadening the number of people who can do this, well.

Chris: Sorry, just I was gonna say, Sunshine, there's one really important point there is, you know, often those science communication courses, talk about font sizes, right. And not talking about, ‘oh, well, you might want to consider the portrayal of different racial and ethnic groups on your slide set.’ And that's kind of just as important as font sizes, I think.

Sunshine: Absolutely. Yeah. I totally agree with you. Yeah. And so, great science communication is perceived in some very simplistic ways, sometimes not that, you know, not that like, easy to read fonts that are that people with color blindness can actually see are not important. You know, there are accessibility concerns here too. But, right? Science communication should be much more - you can tell I'm passionate about this, because my voice just squeaked! -  science communication should be much more than just an issue of presentation. Yeah, you know, like, let's think deeply about what it is we are trying to achieve. And the ways we are trying to engage. And so, you know, that's, that's something I'm really excited about right now trying to figure out how to build out those, those training modules, you know, and approaches, so that many more people can implement them.

Lewis: I think there's a real evidence gap there. And not that the research isn't there, it is! But you know, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention the work of people like Emily Dawson, the Science Capital Research, the Aspies research, you know, I think science communication, building lots of training, as Christopher said, we've gone on the model where it's just ‘let's just make science fun, right?’ The hand-wavy jazz hands. And that's not to say that there's not a place for that because you know, within the arts, there's Community Arts, there's art education, and there's entertainment and it's really important that science’s culture has that element. But we know that it's not that girls don't go into physics, not because they don't find it fun. It's not why they don't do it. It's because they don't identify, and they don't see themselves reflected back. And it doesn't resound to the values and the parents' values. And so I think there's a knowledge gap there in terms of the evidence of what we think science communication should be, of course, it should be engaging. But we know that what changes people's minds, especially around things like COVID, and it's not about facts, it is about authenticity. It's about relationship building. And so again, there's another knowledge gap there. And then a quick final point to raise what Chris said in terms of like, for example, museums have researched whether or not going for free, for free admission, increases diversity. And it actually doesn't, interestingly, it doesn't make a difference. So really, it's not the financial cost, it is this sense of, ‘is this a place for me? And is this a place is about, that values me, and it is worth my time.’ And that's a much more difficult thing than just admission prices.

Chris:  You just reminded me of my big quarrel with the Royal Institution about the dress code last year, which went very public, and I thought I was gonna get in lots of trouble. And eventually, they pulled the dress code for exactly the reason you point out. It’s because I was going into that space as somebody who's ‘qualified’, as an invited speaker, and I was like, I don't want to dress up in a lounge suit to talk about volcanoes, I want to go in jeans and a T-shirt. And, and there was a huge argument about that for exactly those reasons. So I completely agree with you that by making it fun, we'll make it more accessible. But just like changing the feel of the places and the people, it will make more people want to come.

Danielle: And sort of dismissing this idea that because you're making it fun, you must be dumbing it down somehow. Because it's fun now and it's accessible, therefore, you must be dumbing it down, right? It's so annoying.

Mary-Ann: Especially if you're doing it in jeans and a t-shirt.

Chris: My mantra is you should wear to present your science what you wore when you did the science.

Danielle: I love that.

Mary-Ann: That's it. That's a ballgown for Danielle?

Danielle: Yes. Didn’t you see my Christmas lectures?

Danielle: How do we move this forward then? You know what, what's next for us? Because we don't want this just to be a conversation and then we don't do anything. You know, how do we move it forward?

Sibusiso: That's a tough one. We have to move it forward. Because for me, what I've noticed is that with a lot of the decolonization stuff that I've been talking about, specifically with language, a lot of people who have been excited about translating or talking about science in isiZulu aren't isiZulu speakers. It's other science communicators, it's other podcasters or other people who are very excited about this sort of work. And I'm still myself trying to figure out, okay, it's great talking about it, but how do I get it to the people who need it the most? Because unfortunately, it's difficult to even get someone who's outside the field of science to care about it, sometimes. Unless it's something super exciting, or colorful, or jazz hands like it was mentioned before. And I enjoy doing that sometimes, but I want to, I want to see results. It's important to be very specific about the work too. There has to be a reason, there has to be a good way of doing it. So I'm willing to hear what everyone else has to say. Because I'd also like to... I'd also like to know!

Danielle: Sunshine, how do you move the conversation forward in the US?

Sunshine: So I really appreciate what Sibusiso just said, and you know, I'm thinking of the ‘nothing about us without us’, you know, a rallying cry. And I think that's a really important point. But another thing that I would add that is very important for moving forward that kind of builds on that idea is that there are many early-career scientists and science communicators who are bringing novel and very exciting approaches toward this work. And they're really leading the pack in many ways. And they need to be in these conversations in leadership positions, to a much greater degree. There, you know, and with the power to actually influence the conversations, but not as tokens. And I think this is a really important thing that all of us, you know, in whatever spheres we worked in, need to be thinking about. So that's one of many thoughts I have in response to that question.

Unknown Speaker  1:00:14: Yeah ‘novel and exciting’. I mean, Lewis, Science Cèidlh is novel and - I love a Cèidlh - that's very exciting. Is that the way you're going to move it forward?

Lewis: Not well, not, at least not in terms of the dance aspect, even though it's always the fun bit. But sadly, we're not gonna be dancing for a wee while. But I mean, the original meaning of Cèidlh is ‘a gathering.’ you know. In Gallic, it means ‘bringing people together.’ I think that really is my main advice, especially working across different sectors, I think. The main thing, I think, to move forward is that we need to be humble, we need to listen. I think COVID is really centered to a point. You know, I believe that science and public engagement can be a big part of social justice and making the world better, but the time has to be right, the format has to be right. And I think we do need to ask ourselves these questions and learn from other sectors, you know, look at how arts and culture and the third sector have dealt with this humanitarian crisis that is on our hands at the moment, and they've been flexible, the way that they funds and so have intermediaries that are community-based that are really truly led by communities and funding directly communities. And I think we need to look within our sites, communication, power structures, and research power structures. And really question, is it flexible enough? And do we really hand over enough power to communities? And I think that you know, and if the answer is ‘no’, I think that needs to change. And it will take time. And it's difficult. And I think we need to remain humble throughout the whole thing.

Danielle: Absolutely. Chris? I mean, you've got a great opportunity coming up with your Royal Institution Christmas lectures as well. I mean, that must be a great way to keep this conversation flowing.

Chris: It is definitely a great way. But I think the thing that kind of worries me about things like the Christmas lectures, they become the kind of the summit of science communication, and if you're at the top of that summit, you will be listened to more and afforded more airtime than other people. And there's a huge space isn't there ‘beneath’, quote, unquote, the science communication that's afforded by the Royal Institution Christmas lectures, all the way down to talking to your kids at the breakfast table about something they found interesting on the breakfast table. And it's that huge space between them that I think we need to, we need to kind of value. And not just idolize, I guess, certain people who are given those particular positions and fantasize their achievements and then measure ourselves against this. And if you don't do science communication, and you get your own TV series, then you're not as good as this person. So you know, just a final comment related to all of that is then, you know, in that middle space between those two kinds of extremes, if you will, in the UK academic system, which is what I'm most familiar with, is getting back to my original point at the start of actually valuing it and getting an evidence base for the value of science communication. We're seeing that at the moment around admissions, you know, there's all these scares about whether we're going to get enough students and this scare in earth sciences, which I work in, are falling application numbers and student numbers. Maybe we need to go out and start telling people why things are really important. And actually, you know, the bums on seats which pay some money, is as valuable as a paper published in Nature or science, perhaps? I'm just going to throw it out there! And so the people who are doing that, you know, what you call it, ‘unglamorous work’ of going into schools and being like, shouted at by small kids, like I have, you know, maybe there is some monetary value to that? I don't want to monetize it, though, because I just want to do it because I just want to talk to small kids about rocks, right? But if the people upstairs need to be convinced of it, I think we need to have some evidence base. And I don't know, maybe it's out there. And I'm just not aware of it. If it is out there, we need to be presenting it much more centrally too, again, the UK academic management and saying this is the value of science communication in terms of the bottom line, I always hate to do that, because it perverts the incentives right to do it, it becomes a financial incentive, rather than I think it's we just need to make science more equitable, by talking to lots of different people.

Mary-Ann: But I guess what it does do is embed what might turn into systemic change rather than just being a charismatic individual or a funky project that's got funding because that those are the systems that are recognized within the institutions and structures that we've inherited, that, you know, we're all embedded in me as a journalist, as an anthropologist, you guys as academics. So I wonder whether it has to be monetized? Whether that's one of the things that the, you know, bean counters will be able to fit into that spreadsheet.

Chris: The problem is that once you monetize things, as soon as the value, or the perceived value is lost, it disappears. Yeah, so I'm really, really... it's the same when you talk about CDI initiatives, or you talk about things like Athena SWAN, or you know, the race policy charter. When there's money on the hook, people will behave, and they won't be as terrible...or at least they'll be able to keep themselves to themselves. You take that, that incentive away, you know. You never get to fight for the hearts and minds and the real...the real hunger for real change. That's... I'm a bit conflicted. As you can hear!

Sibusiso: Yeah, that is a tough one, especially in South Africa, there's been a lot of incentive given to scientists in their research to include science communication as part of their applications for funding. But then it becomes a, what you would call a tick box exercise, they will do the bare minimum in order to get that done. But then if you don't incentivize that, if you don't incentivize that they're not, then they're not going to do it at all. So it's, it's a tough one, do you incentivize it, do you not? If you don't, they don't do it. But then if you do incentivize it, the advantage is that there are scientists who do want to communicate their science. And you can see the passion come out when they do get that opportunity and opportunities that they wouldn't get if it wasn't incentivized. So maybe it's yes, it's, it's a lot of people are going to do a tick box thing, but maybe that incentive gives the opportunity to those who wouldn't have that opportunity otherwise but wants to do it.

Mary-Ann: I feel like we could have this conversation forever. But I guess we have to stop there. Sibusiso, Lewis, Sunshine, Chris. Thank you so much for sharing your experience and insight with us.

Sibusiso: Thanks for having us.

Chris: Thank you for inviting us.

Sunshine: Thank you so much for having us.

Danielle: I think it's such an important conversation, isn't it? And I think as a, you know, from my point of view, as a, as an academic, as a researcher, as a teacher, everyone is affected by the progress of science. So so we need an inclusive community that that engages all the voices in the scientific dialogue, and, and it just needs to happen, you know, we need more people like you guys, and more of this needs to happen. Yeah, that's it. And that is the way that SciComm, in my mind, achieves its ultimate aim, which is making science belong to and benefit everyone.

Mary-Ann: And I think the other thing, Danielle, is that this can't be a moment that happened in 2020, where we all suddenly...well, some of us were already awake...but you know, the rest of us kind of woke up and went, ‘oh, here's, here's the thing that's happening. What are they on about?’ You know, we have to actually use this as a moment to change things systemically and permanently. And so with that in mind, what we're going to do, good listeners of our podcast, is this is special but this is just the start. So please do go on to the website, thisstudyshows.com to find links and information to our speakers to the examples that we've talked about for best practice that they think that more people should know about so that we can start building those relationships.

Danielle: Yeah, thank you so much for listening. And thank you to an amazing panel.

Mary-Ann: See you soon.

Danielle: Bye-bye.