Why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?
Posted Sep 10 2012 5:33am
The course Public Health Science Communication went live Wednesday last week! And based on the first experiences it survived the encounter with the students, is still in good shape and looking forward to moving on to module two this coming Wednesday.
Since the concept “public health science communication” is still not a household concept and does to my knowledge not (yet) have a Wikipedia entry or a crystal clear definition, I found it useful during the first lesson to ask the students what they, in one sentence, considered public health science communication to be. It gave some interesting responses, of which I here share a few:
In one sentences: What is public health science communication?
Simplifying public health science so that it is easier to understand for the public
Public health science communication is the science of communication of scientific research to the public
Communicating the essence of public health research to the public
It’s an interaction among public health workers, public and policy makers to improve health of general public
Ways to create greater understanding amongst public, governments and general public about advances in science in particular and relevant formats
Communication of scientific health information translated into understandable messages to the public
That it is important – why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?
Most of the responses are not surprising, and combining them gets us around several aspects of the concept. I do however still find it a little surprising that focus is so heavily on communicating to the public. Where is communication with researchers? Only a few mention e.g. policymakers and public health practitioners. Of course the word public could be understood in its broadest sense – but my feeling is that many are thinking about Mr and Mrs Smith/Jensen/Sanchez when they say “the public”. Some also understood public health science communication to be communicating for behavioral change, which would probably fall more under health communication. Secondly, it seems that science communication is regarded as being about communicating to the public and not with the public. I look forward to expanding the students’ perception of this in the coming weeks.
All the responses are interesting, but my favorite response is this one: “That it is important – why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?” In my head it nails it completely.
I also asked the student what they expected to learn. Below some of their responses:
What do you expect to learn?
How to be a better communicator of science
I expect to learn something about how to communicate public health science to the public, what information is interesting for ”the public” and which strategies are useful in communicating and how I do it
Something about the relation between the scientific world and the public – the role of science communication
How to better communicate health related information to individuals (with diverse backgrounds) + communities in an effective and respectful manner
A broader way of thinking/analysing/communicate science so it is easier to implement them locally/nationally/internationally
How to make research tangible for people outside the field. How to sell the message
How to communicate to the public 1) what is public health science, 2) communicate results of public health sciences
Challenges of communication with policy makers from public health workers point of view
Theories and practical stuff about communication
I’m exited about what the responses. Hopefully, the students will feel that they have been given a few tools, and a better understanding of the role of science communication in public health when the course is over. I also hope that they will have seen that public health science communication includes more than reaching the public and ‘selling messages’, but is just as much about engaging and interacting with the public (understood in its broadest sense) and that communication is not only in aimed at educating the public but may also serve a purpose for their research and for themselves as researchers.
Although the students’ expectations and the objective of the course weren’t all that different I still clarified what the course was not – and what it was intending to be. Perhaps this may be useful to readers on this blog as well.