Author:

Abstract:

This manuscript investigates and aims to transcend inherent paradigmatic challenges in public science dissemination by reflecting upon the science communication paradigm in which both science dissemination research and practice are embedded. Public science dissemination is within this work defined as the translating, curating, and transferring of scientific knowledge via science intermediaries, encompassing a broad and diverse spectrum of professions and backgrounds, to members of the public, enabling them to actively consider and potentially use the scientific information they receive. This form of science communication is to play a pivotal role in translating intricate scientific knowledge to the public and facilitating knowledge transfer, building a bridge between the scientific and public realms, countering misinformation, and addressing public distrust in science, especially in times of increasing mediatisation. However, contemporary research in science communication reveals concerns about a paradigm crisis and various scholars propose revisions to the existing, failing science communication paradigm in which public science dissemination is embedded. One of these proposed revisions involves evaluating and safeguarding the quality of science communication. Within this manuscript, we will identify quality criteria for interactive and creative science dissemination practices, thus contributing to these paradigmatic revisions. Simultaneously, we will reflect upon this scientific revision and question whether it is foundational enough to facilitate a paradigmatic shift, as some proponents claim. In other words, we will also examine the field of science communication research itself and underlying foundations of science communication. While the primary focus in the existing literature on science communication is directed towards the public, there is also a need for introspection within the subfield and the subculture itself. The 'science' of science communication grapples with various internal challenges that are currently underexposed. To unveil and address these challenges, this research undertakes a foundational inquiry and attempts to articulate various persistent 'malaises' in science communication that are potential barriers to a genuine paradigm shift. However, within this manuscript we will not be looking for definite answers to research questions regarding public science dissemination. We will rather be posing foundational questions to inquire and challenge unquestioned evident and normalised presumptions in our contemporary science communication paradigm. These questions are needed to uncover blind spots in a paradigm that we cannot see, but that leads our practice, nonetheless. This overarching rationale and aim serve as the bedrock of this manuscript. Multiple reflection layers have been introduced throughout the manuscript, including a reflection on science dissemination as a (research) practice, science communication as a (failing) paradigm, the interconnectedness between science communication and science itself, the scientific gaze and its method(ology), the relation between language, epistemology and ontology, and the Ph.D. manuscript itself as an act of science dissemination. All these layers play an essential role in the manuscript and they are integral components of the knowledge being created concerning science dissemination. Also, various research methods were employed to conduct a paradigmatic discourse inquiry within the science communication subculture and subfield. These methods encompassed a systematic review, face validity, co-creation, participatory observation and contemplation, discourse analysis, and 'observational' literature study. An important key finding of this research is that various foundational malaises and blind spots in science communication research and practice are inherently intertwined with the scientific endeavour and our Zeitgeist. Additionally, contemporary revisions are not foundational enough if they build upon the same underlying assumptions of the science communication paradigm that is considered to be failing, rendering the proposed revisions for a paradigmatic shift rhetorical. Another key finding is that for the dissemination and communication of science to be meaningful, discourse - thinking - acting must be aligned. This might seem straightforward, yet in practice, disruptions in this connection are commonly observed. Communicators must ensure that their communication is 'adequate', 'correct', and 'truthful'. Furthermore, transcending the paradigmatic boundaries of science (communication) necessitates the inclusion of other ways of knowing without assimilating them. This foundational philosophical reflection on science communication research and science dissemination practice aims to contribute to meaningful public science dissemination and the transcendence of paradigmatic boundaries in science (dissemination research). Investigating and contemplating the science communication paradigm is valuable from a scientific perspective, as the pursuit of scientific knowledge and its communication are inherently interconnected. This manuscript should therefore not be merely read as a work about public science dissemination, but also as a reflection on science through a study of the science communication paradigm. Furthermore, from a societal perspective this research is valuable given the profound impact of science (communication) on society at large. Inquiring paradigmatic barriers within science communication and the blind spots in its subfield and subculture from an insider's perspective is crucial for both the scientific and the public realms, especially when we consider that researchers have grown accustomed to these barriers and adapted to them in their (systematic) practice, while members of the public lack the 'insider' knowledge necessary to distinguish and address these barriers.