, , , , , , , , ,

Communicating science is so often focused on transferring knowledge from experts to members of the public. More and more often it is also associate with engaging and communicating with the public. But still with a focus on what the public or the common man gets out of this. But what’s in it for the scientist? How can science communication benefit the researcher personally? Is it just a waste of time and a burden?

These questions are key to module 3 of the course Public Health Science Communication. In preparing for the module, I was surprised of how difficult it was to find literature that focuses specifically on this topic. It is mentioned as a component of science communication but little research put it at the center – at least as far I have been able to find out…

For the course I have included four texts that all  touches upon the topic, but doesn’t have it as the main focus:

I have later on come across the two articles below, which focus on the costs and benefits of research communication. Both, however, put most attention on the costs and the potential benefits of alternative models for scholarly publishing (e.g. open access) and focuses on to a lesser extend on the benefits of the actual communication of science.

Research communication costs in Australia, Emerging opportunities and benefits

Costs and benefits of Research communication: The Dutch Situation (click here for the summary version)

What’s in it for you?

Therefore: In preparation for the course it would be great to receive some inputs from you people out there on how communicating your science has helped YOU. What have the benefits been for YOU? Do they out-weigh any potential disadvantages? If your research could talk – what would it say it got out of you communicating?

Hints to blog posts, book chapters, articles, podcast etc. focusing on this or just your own testimonials will be highly treasured! And will of course be fed back through this blog.