Investigating success factors required in science communication

Keywords: public understanding and awareness, Science Centre/Museum, STEM, collaboration, skills-programme, science communication

Abstract

This study is based on the perception of the importance of owning or having a Science Centre or Museum at the South African University of Technology (UoT). A qualitative study was done with 63 UoT students, and participation was voluntary. The scope of science communication has therefore been limited to people already practicing or learning in the field. The study has thus investigated the key factors to successful science communication in a broader perspective and sphere. The study was also based on the fact that there is no forum of general public science understanding and awareness within and outside UoT communities. UoT will therefore serve as a better platform to communicate science within its community. In turn, the general public and school learners from lower grades can benefit significantly through this endeavour. The study therefore recommends that a Science Centre or Museum, to serve the general public, learners, and students, should be established to serve one of the Metropolitan cities, and its neighbouring regions. The initiative will be in line with the government’s strategic priorities through the DST and foster cooperation and collaboration mainly with the DBE and DHET, with the introduction of skills programmes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

I. Phage, Central University of Technology, Free State

Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

References

Anderson, A.A. and A.B. Becker. 2018. Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication, 40(4), pp.524-540.

Barker, D. 2004. The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 9, Number 2,p. 123 – 137.

Bollier, D. 2002. Academic commons. Academe 85(5): 19–22.

Boyer, E. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: The priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer, E. 1996. The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1(1): 11–20.

Boyte, H. C. 2003. Civic populism. Perspectives on Politics 1(4): 737–41.

Burns, T.W., D.J.O'Connor and S.M. Stocklmayer. 2003. Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public understanding of science, 12(2), pp.183-202.

Chaldecott JA. Bibliography - Communication in Science. By A. J. Meadows. London: Butterworths, 1974. Pp. 248. £6.00. The British Journal for the History of Science. 1978;11(1):67-68. doi:10.1017/S0007087400015983

Checkoway, B. 2000. Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. Journal of Higher Education 72(2): 125–47.

Chilisa, B. 2019. Indigenous research methodologies. Sage publications.

Chilisa, B., 2019. Decolonising research: an interview with Bagele Chilisa. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, (1), pp.12-18.

Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) 2021. Annual performance plan 2022/23 chrome- https://www.dhet.gov.za/Strategic%20Plans/Department%20of%20Higher%20Education

%20and%20Training%20APP%202022-23.pdf

Estrada-Martínez, L.M., Raciti, A., Reardon, K.M., Reyes, A.G. and Israel, B.A., 2021. Is the scholarship of engagement a meaningful approach to foster change in community development education? Field notes from three community/university partnerships. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 4, pp.181-206.

Fairfield, J., C. Fracchiolla and R. Mutiso. 2018. Bringing Science to the Public in Nairobi. The Institute of Physics (IOP) Blog. http://www.iopblog.org/bringing-science-to-the-public- in-nairobi/ (Date retrieved: 7 October 218).

Gibbon, S., 2006. Breast cancer genes and the gendering of knowledge. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Jones, E.M., Lawson, H.A. and Richards, K.A., 2022. Operationalizing a physical education workforce research and development agenda. Quest, 74(4), pp.374-388.

Jones,G., M., J. Nieuwsma, K. Rende, S. Carrier, E. Refvem, C. Delgado, J. Grifenhagen and P. Huff. 2022. Leveraging the epistemic emotion of awe as a pedagogical tool to teach science. International Journal of Science Education, 44(16), pp.2485-2504.

Keohane, R.O., M. Lane and M. Oppenheimer. 2014. The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(4), pp.343-368.

Könneker, C. 2012. Science communication: a handbook with many practical examples. John Wiley & Sons.

Meadows, A.J. 1974. Communication in science. London: Butterworths.

Ockhuizen, J.A., 2018. Learner-centred teaching and learning practices in geography teaching in Namibian secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State).

Palmer, E., 2024. Fostering a sense of belonging. In Supporting the Student Journey into Higher Education (pp. 35-41). Routledge.

Puukka, J., P. Dubarle, H. McKiernan, J. Reddy and P. Wade. 2012. The Free State, South Africa.

PytlikZillig, L.M. and A.J. Tomkins. 2011. Public engagement for informing science and technology policy: What do we know, what do we need to know, and how will we get there? Review of policy research, 28(2), pp.197-217.

Schön, D.A., 1995. Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), pp.27-34.

Schubert, J., 2021. Engineering the climate: Science, politics, and visions of control. Mattering Press.

Washburn, R.A., 2000. Assessment of physical activity in older adults. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 71(sup2), pp.79-87.

Published
2025-05-01
How to Cite
Phage, I. 2025. “Investigating Success Factors Required in Science Communication ”. South African Journal of Higher Education 39 (2), 252-62. https://doi.org/10.20853/39-2-6557.