Foundational Science Communication Research
Our approach to science communication training evolved from Alan Alda’s experience as host of Scientific American Frontiers (1993-2005). He sensed that improvisational theater experiences could help scientists and health care professionals become better communicators through increased empathy and clarity.
Since the Center’s founding in 2009, we have built on the original idea of using improvisation to improve science communication. As a team of social scientists and improvisation specialists, we collaborate to translate research-backed communication principles and techniques into practical learning experiences.
Below are some of the sources we draw from in the design of our professional development programs. This is a growing list, as we continue to build new programs and refine legacy ones. Grounding our programs in the most up-to-date social science research adds an additional layer of rigor to our cutting-edge programs. We also conduct our own research with the goal of using our discoveries to improve the science of science communication and connect science with society.
The Alda Method® - Built on Research and Experience
The Alda Method® combines applied improvisational exercises and communication strategies to help people build interpersonal connections and trust across backgrounds, experiences, and expertise. This requires an ability to connect and engage, grounded in the processes of paying attention and engaging intellectually, emotionally, and/or physically with a set of ideas, practices, people, and/or questions (Fredricks et al., 2016; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011).
Communication is not a thing we convey (i.e. information to be transmitted), but rather a process that forms our experiences of and relationships with each other and the material world in which we live (Craig, 1999). Following this line of thought, scientists do much more than transmit information, and our method aims to foster greater collaboration, empathy, and understanding between communication partners. Preparing scientists for this work involves creating opportunities for them to learn about, test, and refine these ideas, dispositions, and skills through performance and feedback cycles conducted in safe spaces (AAAS, 2020; Aurbach et al., 2019).
Signature Science Communication Programs Bibliography
The following are many of the primary works that inform our Signature In-Person 1- & 2-Day Programs and our Signature Virtual Programs:
American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2020). The public face of science in America: Priorities for the future. https://www.amacad.org/publication/public-face-science-america-priorities-future
Akin, H. & Scheufele, D.A. (2017) Overview of the science of science communication. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford University Press, pp. 25-33.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), pp. 132-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
Aurbach, E. L., Prater, K. E., Cloyd, E. T., & Lindenfeld, L. (2019). Foundational skills for science communication: A preliminary framework [White Paper]. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/150489
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). Science communication training: What
are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, 7(3), pp. 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., et al. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13, pp. 1175-1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), pp. 1692-1702. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Besley, J., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists' views about communication
training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), pp. 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186
Besley, J., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Ghannam, N. A. (2016). Qualitative interviews with
science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), pp. 356-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640
Besley, J., & Tanner, A. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training
scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), pp. 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972
Bloomfield, E. F. (2024). Science v. story: Narrative strategies for science communicators. University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/science-v-story/paper
Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the
general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill
as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), pp. 6-10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24319399/
Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C., & Patt, A. G. (2006). Countering the loading-dock approach
to linking science and decision making: Comparative analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) forecasting systems. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(4), pp. 465-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906287547
Copple, J., Bennett, N., Dudo, A., Moon, W. K., Newman, T. P., Besley, J., Leavey,
N., Lindenfeld, L., & Volpe, C. (2020). Contribution of training to scientists’ public
engagement intentions: A test of indirect relationships using parallel multiple mediation.
Science Communication, 42(4), pp. 508-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020943594
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), pp. 119-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2011). Network determinants of knowledge utilization: Preliminary lessons from a boundary organization. Science Communication, 33(4), 448-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
Dahlstrom, M. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with
nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(4), pp. 13614-13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking
to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), pp. 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547008316222
Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives
for public engagement. PLoS ONE, 11(2), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43(4), pp. 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Gorghiu, G., & Santi, E. (2016). Applications of experiential learning in science
education non-formal contexts. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, pp. 320-326. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.11.33
Jackson, C. (2018). The public mostly trusts science. So why are scientists worried? Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/public-mostly-trusts-science-so-why-are-scientists-worried
Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(7279), pp. 296-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/463296a
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M. Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, pp. 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
Kuchel, L. (2019). Insights for designing science communication training from formal science education: Apply the mantra and be explicit. In T. Newman (Ed.), Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training. Routledge.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., McGill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. East Yorkshire: Studies in Education.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), pp. 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001
MacArthur, B., Lindenfeld, L., Aurbach, E., Bevan, B., & Newman, T.P. (2020). Bridging
science with society: Defining pathways for engagement. Communication Center Journal, 6(1), pp. 62-78. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1289311.pdf
MacArthur, B. L., Leavey, N. J., & Ng, A. E. (2019). Abandoning the runaway train: Slowing down to draw on lessons learned from health communication training. In T. Newman (Ed.), Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training. Routledge.
McGreavy, B., Hutchins, K., Smith, H., Lindenfeld, L., & Silka, L. (2013). Addressing
the complexities of boundary work in sustainability science through communication.
Sustainability, 5(10), pp. 4195-4221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104195
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674.
Olson, R. (2015). Houston, we have a narrative: Why science needs story. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Parker, J. N., & Crona, B. I. (2012). On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), pp. 262-289. https://doi.org/10.2307/23210209?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate
Pew Research Center. (2019). Trust and mistrust in americans’ views of scientific experts. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/
Rajput, A. S. D. (2017). Science communication as an academic discipline: An Indian
perspective. Current Science, 113(12), pp. 2262–2267. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26493533
Rogers, C.L. (2000). Making the audience a key participant in the science communication
process. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), pp. 553-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0015-1
Smith, B. (2019). A metro for science communication: Building effective infrastructure to support scientists’ communication and public engagement. In T. Newman (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351069366-11/metro-science-communication-brooke-smith
Smith, H., Suldovsky, B., & Lindenfeld, L. (2016). Science and policy: Scientific expertise and individual participation in boundary management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44(1), pp. 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2015.1116707
Sturgin, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), pp. 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
Suldovsky, B., McGreavy, B., & Lindenfeld, L.(2018) Evaluating epistemic commitments and science communication practice in transdisciplinary research. Science Communication, 40(4),pp. 499-423.https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786566
Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists'
public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), pp. 722-731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090
Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), pp. 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600106