ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

Tension or symbiosis: science communication in theory and practice

On Tuesday 21 January 2025 we spent a day exchanging knowledge between communication professionals and researchers, going in-depth, exploring what lessons from research mean for practice, and what questions and insights from practice mean for research.

We tackled questions such as: what insights do communication professionals need from science communication research? Is what we do as professionals actually evidence-based? How can scientific knowledge improve our practice? And how can we use practical insights for research?

Below, you will find the most important insights for each session.

Opening speech by Prof. Erik van Sebille

Prof. Erik van Sebille opened the day. In his speech, he touched upon the trust in science, and the importance of making sure we keep earning that trust. To do that, we have to view our science communication and public engagement as fully part of our profession and execute it in a professional way.

We can only do that if we combine knowledge from experience with knowledge from evidence based research, and if we are recognised and rewarded for doing so by the academic community. He concluded with an appeal for coordinated and strategic science communication, a place to experiment, test and try, and combining our ideas, talents and networks, today at Wetenschnapps and in the future.

Read the full text of his speech:

Learning from the neighbours: a conversation on knowledge exchange

With: Julia Wigger, projectmanager of the Transfer Unit of Wissenschaft im Dialog; Sicco de Knecht, Director of NEWS (Nationaal Expertisecentrum Wetenschap en Samenleving). Moderator: Hilke Grootelaar

As a think-and-do tank, has been developing practical knowledge on science communication for over two decades now. In the Netherlands, we recently gained a national centre aiming to improve science communication and public engagement through better exchange of knowledge: .

What can we learn from each other? Which differences do we see between the Netherlands and Germany in their approach to science and science communication? Or is it a classic case of: ‘We’re not so different, you and I’?

In this session, Julia Wigger gave insights into how the Transfer Unit makes research knowledge available and usable for the field, and how they enrich research with perspectives from practice. Sicco de Knecht talked about the goals and views of NEWS. In the following conversation we explored how we can learn from and inspire each other to make our science communication more effective.

Read the presentations about the knowledge exchange project at Wissenschaft im Dialog and about NEWS:

How to reach deep participation. What can professionals and researchers learn from citizen science?

With: Anouk Spelt and Margaret Gold (Citizen Science Nederland), Rosan van Halsema (Aquatic Ecologist at NIOO-KNAW) and José de Wit (program curator family activities at ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Museum Utrecht).

How can we forge a deeper connection with our audience? This is a question many science communicators encounter, and in this, we can learn much from developments in citizen science.

In these projects, audiences are enticed to not only participate in science, but also to stay involved, and benefit from their involvement. In this session, we explored good practices and challenges, discussing together what we know and what we still have to learn.

Impression and insights from this session:

Game design as game changer in science communication?

With: Nieske Vergunst (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��, Faculty of Science), Jasper van Vught (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��, Faculty of Humanities), René Glas (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��, Faculty of Humanities)

Using game principles in your science communication offers great opportunities to engage your audience: both the design process and the resulting game can transform complex topics into an engaging and impactful experience. In this hands-on workshop, participants gained inspiration and a first taste of practical experience. Read the tips in the handout:

Participatory research & science communication: How and when should they join forces?

With: Karen Mogendorff and Evy van Gestel (both Avans Hogeschool)

Participatory research and science communication are in practice largely separated worlds. They have also much in common. After an introduction on theory and practice of both participatory research and science communication, the participants in this workshop discussed what participatory research and science communication can learn from one another, and when they could or should reinforce one another.

It is fair and just to involve people in the research that effects them

In arguing the pros and cons around three statements, the participants clarified their thoughts on these subjects. Read the presentation and statements:

This session forced me to think about what I actually understand by terms like participatory research and science communication. In the debate, you had to take a stand and this made my own thoughts insightful for myself

Co-creation Workshop: Making theory valuable for daily practice – and vice versa

With: Stephan van Duin (UMC Utrecht and SciComNL)

Most studies on interaction and potential cross-fertilisation between theory and practice of science communication concern specific cases that do not offer broadly applicable principles. Some studies conclude that while intentions were good, the interaction between researchers and practitioners suffered. A few studies explore the potential resolve of the theory-practice-divide, but these, too, end with barriers that challenge cross-fertilisation in practice.

In this co-creation workshop, participants worked on concrete action points, such as ways to make literature more valuable for practitioners or to deal with time and budgetary constraints. They looked at what scholars and practitioners would need to actually benefit from each other and explored potential solutions and action points, wrapping up with a road map.

A short summary of the most salient results and thoughts from the workshop:

Recognizing and rewarding effective science communication: how to find space for science communication in your career and how evaluation can play a role

With Anne Land-Zandstra (assistant professor Science Communication ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� of Leiden), Madelijn Strick (associate professor Social and Behavioural Sciences Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Saskia Stevens (associate professor Ancient History and Classical Civilisation and Impact Officer for the Faculty of Humanities at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Dieudonée van de Willige (assistant director Faculty of Science and Engineering at Maastricht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��) and Frank Duinker (HR Business Partner Faculty of Science, Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��).

Science communication has a place in the Recognition and Rewards programme, meaning that it should “count” towards career advancements. But how do we recognise effective science communication and how do we reward researchers and research teams for it?

In this session, participants discussed success stories, challenges and solutions. In part 1 we had a panel discussion with Saskia Stevens, Dieudonnée van de Willige and Frank Duinker. Also, Madelijn Strick and Anne Land, founders of the IMPACTLAB, showed how evidence-based impact measurement can play a role. In part 2, participants collectively developed solutions for the challenges in a world café setting.

Summary of both parts of this session:

Scientific evidence for your wisdom: Communication advice based on research

With: Tessa van Charldorp and Lisanne van Weelden (associate professors of Language & Communication at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��)

In this knowledge session for communication professionals, participants looked at the science communication advice they frequently give with critical eyes, and discussed with researchers Tessa van Charldorp and Lisanne van Weelden what the research says about their advice.

Read their tips on where to find accessible scientific information on language and communication (mostly Dutch sources):

A dialogue between science communication PhD candidates and press officers

With: Marie Verstappen (KU Leuven), Miguel Vissers (ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� of Antwerp), Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven), Sofie Verkest (Ghent ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Aike Vonk (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Nazgol Salamat (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Irina Mak (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��), Niels Kerstes (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��)

Press officers are really just PR people. Science journalists are too critical about science news, while general journalists are not critical enough. Good science communication is impossible in a competitive academic context.

In this session, we had two teams on stage: the new generation of Dutch and Belgian science communication researchers, and a group of practitioners. They discussed a number of sharp statements in an interactive ‘Lagerhuisdebat’ style, where the audience was invited to participate.

Read a summary of the most important points from this session:

Learning from colleagues: how we bridge research and practice in science education and mathematics

With Kim Krijtenburg-Lewerissa (Freudenthal Institute), Michiel van Harskamp (Freudenthal Institute), Paul Alstein (Freudenthal Institute & Hogeschool Utrecht), Vincent Jonker (Freudenthal Institute & Expertisepunt Rekenen-Wiskunde)

Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��’s Freudenthal Institute has been working across the gap between research and practice for decades, just in a different field: mathematics and science education. In this session, the participants an panellists together explored: How do researchers in mathematics education collaborate with practitioners to make research findings useful for classrooms? How can teachers’ hands-on experiences help shape research questions and outcomes? What happens if researchers and practitioners (and policy makers) have conflicting interests? And how can we facilitate people to straddle the gap between research and practice?

Read a summary with the most important takeaways of this session:

Learn to fish in science communication literature

With Nieske Vergunst (Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��)

Give a person a fish, and you’ll feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, and you’ll feed them for a lifetime. In this workshop, Nieske Vergunst taught participants how to fish in science communication literature, including cleaning and preparing the fish: reading and interpreting these science communication papers and using the insights in their work.

Read Nieske's tips in the handout:

Inclusion and accessibility in science communication

With: Björk Johannes (researcher at KNMI), Peter Kuipers Munneke (climate researcher and weatherman at KNMI) and Liesbeth de Bakker (science communication educator at the Freudenthal Institute of Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��).

In this session, participants and panellists challenged themselves to rethink how they communicate science with audiences we may not usually consider, such as individuals with lower literacy, non-STEM audiences, and young people. How can we reach these groups in meaningful ways? Who are they, and what are their interests, knowledge and values? They looked at these questions from the perspectives of research, education, and practice.

Read a summary with main takeaways:

How do you find the right experts for studying (the impact of) science communication efforts?

With: Ivo van Vulpen (physicist and Professor Science Communication in Physics, Leiden ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� and ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� of Amsterdam/Nikhef), Nicos Starreveld (mathematician at ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� of Amsterdam and head of communications and outreach at Platform Wiskunde Nederland), Jeroen Mulder (postdoc at the Methods and Statistics department of Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��) and Marc van Mil (biomedical scientist and educational innovator at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��)

Ivo van Vulpen and Nicos Starreveld share a question: Help! How do I connect with the right people to help me evaluate the impact of my science communication? Together with Marc van Mil and Jeroen Mulder who have experience with this interdisciplinary work, participants collectively tried to provide answers to this question. How do you find complementary expertise, and how do you relate to them to make it a mutually beneficial project?

Read the main takeaways from this session: