How to build the bridge between scientific evidence and relevance for different
stakeholders such as policy makers, service providers and specific groups
Science communication has a longstanding tradition in CHM’s work. Our aim is to bridge the gap between research and practice and to bring together stakeholders from research, policy development and practice.
CHM applies a transdisciplinary approach where policy and practice experts cooperate with researchers from the very beginning of research processes and where researchers are partners in policy and practice development. For dissemination of results and findings, we use multiple formats to reach different audiences.
We start with the definition of science communication as suggested by T.W. Burns et al (2003) in their publication Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition:
„Science communication is defined as the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opinion-forming, and Understanding.“
With our transdisciplinary approach, we go beyond this definition involving policy makers and practice experts as partners in all stages of the research process.
How to manage transdisciplinary
Example / Beispiel:
Im Projekt „MitarbeiterInnengesundheit und ihre Determinanten im Setting Krankenhaus“ (GMK) entwickelte eine interdisziplinäre Wissenschaftsgruppe (Soziologie, Psychologie, Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung, Arbeitsmedizin) gemeinsam mit einer Praxisgruppe von sieben österreichischen Krankenhäusern ein Wirkmodell und Evaluationsinstrumente zur Gesundheit und Gesundheitsförderung für MitarbeiterInnen im Krankenhaus.
COST action Young-in working group Science Communication
2nd Young-in Science Communica-
Valletta, Malta, 19-20 September 2019
Science Communication working group discussed how to reach out to other than academic groups and identified what skills are needed for doing this sucessfully. Expertise among group members is high and will be shared in a training school on Science Communication. First plans for the training school have been made in Valletta; planning will be continued during the 3rd Science Communication meeting in Vienna in December 2019.
1st Young-in Science Communica-
Vienna, Austria, 2-3 April 2019
Experts from seven countries defined relevant dimensions of science communication and developed a mind map as starting point for further development of the Young-in communication strategy. Representatives of all Young-in working groups, experts from policy and practice, web designers, and young students were involved in the discussion.
3rd Young-in Science Communica-
Vienna, Austria, 09- 11 September 2019
Science Communication working group continued to develop a design and content for a training school and made first decisions on title, duration and venue.
The training school on “Communicating Science in a Way you didn’t learn in Academia” will take place in Madrid, 02-04 September 2020.
In the 3rd Vienna meeting two communication experts shared their experiences and gave tips on how to relate to different audiences. Gill Tudor, Chief of Public Information Section, Legal & External Relations Division, The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) gave an input on “Public information and how to transform science information to a language policymakers and public would understand” and engaged the group in a vivid discussion. Tanja Traxler, Editor of the „Research Special“ Journal of the Austrian quality newspaper “Der Standard“, shared “does and dont’s” in approaching journalists with research findings, writing press releases and using social media for science communication to a non-academic audience. During a site visit at the newspaper’s premises she gave insights into the daily work of science journalists.
Young-in Science Communication print products
folder, postcard, business card
COST Action CA17132 APPLY
The European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis improves the way European citizens understand, evaluate and contribute to public decision-making on such matters of common concern as climate change or energy policies.
CHM engages with a focus on Designing Public Argumentation and Policymaking. The respective working group aims at the development of prescriptive tools for participants in public controversies to engage in well-informed and well-considered discussions.