30 years of PUS: Reflections from Latin America on the academic field of science communication

1. Introduction

In this essay, I aim to reflect on science communication as an academic field in Latin America.

A good starting point could be the first PhD dissertation in science communication. In Brazil, for example, one of the countries in the region with more capacity in the field together with Mexico, Colombia ¹ and Argentina, it is believed that the first PhD dissertation of Latin America in the field was defended in 1985 by Wilson da Costa Bueno, on science journalism in the country. Therefore, while there had been an important movement elsewhere from the 1960s regarding the academic field of science communication (see Gascoigne et al., 2020) that led to the launch of the first volume of PUS in 1992, it would not be unfair to say that in this part of the globe, the first steps towards the construction of such an academic field were being taken in the 1980s, in Brazil.

However, this does not mean that the history of Latin American science communication started in the 1980s. In fact, practical initiatives on science communication had already started at least two centuries ago in the region, as expressed by the creation of natural history museums in the nineteenth century – for instance, in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil, 1818), Buenos Aires (Argentina, 1826), and Santiago (Chile, 1830), along with other spaces such as botanical and zoological gardens.

There are sparse records in Latin America about the history of the academic field of science communication. However, it seems that, in the 1990s, research in science communication, including the creation of Masters and PhD programmes, started to emerge – first at a slow pace, then through more systematic efforts.

In this essay, I present a brief panorama of the field of science communication in the region based on some studies carried out within RedPOP, the Latin American network for science communication, and the Brazil’s Institute of Public Communication of Science and Technology. I will then highlight some of the challenges and trends in the region, looking at the guiding questions (not necessarily answering each of them – at least not straightforwardly): What have we learned? What remains to be done? Are we facing the same challenges as we were 30 years ago, or are we confronted with new types of problem? How have theoretical paradigms and research questions changed? What are the consequences for the research and practice of the changing ‘ecosystem’ of science communication?

2. The region

Latin America covers a great territorial expanse from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego, which represents almost 13% of the earth’s surface and has great cultural diversity. With a history of colonisation in the whole region, Latin America has an important indigenous population of approximately 50 million people, who belong to 500 different ethnic groups. The largest populations, in absolute and relative terms, are in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia. In total, the indigenous population accounts for 8 percent of the region’s population. However, they make up 14 percent of the population living in poverty and 17 percent of population living in extreme poverty. ² Beyond the indigenous groups, poverty is spread in the more than 30 countries in the region, but some have the highest rates of poverty per population such as Suriname, Bolivia, Guyana, and Venezuela.

In this context of diversity in the region, the different countries also have different histories regarding science communication. Their paths leading – to a greater or lesser extent – to the dialogue between science and society may also be different. Nevertheless, some similar elements across the region include a context of social diversity and of economic and political vulnerability, including dictatorships and suppression in some countries.

Different examples can help to illustrate such differences among countries towards science communication. One of them has to do with resources: taking for example as indicator hands on science museums, there are countries such as Brazil and Mexico with a high number of such entities meanwhile others, such as Peru, are currently striving to consolidate the very first one. But also there are historical differences. For example, in the 1960s, a movement towards renewing education was observed in countries in the region. Mexico was an emblematic country in terms of incorporating science to culture, creating an atmosphere for the institutionalisation of science communication, with the National Autonomous University of Mexico pioneer in the region in having a programme on science communication. In the meanwhile, other countries were struggling with a dictatorship (Argentina, from 1966 to 1973; Brazil, 1964 to 1985; Chile, 1973 to 1990; Uruguay, 1973 to 1985), with considerable repercussions in the social, economic, educational and scientific life, including the death or exile of scientists, intellectuals, students, workers and others (Massarani, 2015).

Regarding the scientific context, one element of similarity across the region is the fact that the scientific community, as a body, was consolidated later than in other parts of the world. An illustration of this are the dates of creation of the science academies in the region: while the Royal Society in the United Kingdom – for example – was created in 1660, the Argentinean science academy was created in 1869, the Brazilian in 1916 and the Mexican in 1959 – just to mention some. Although there is not room in this paper to go deeply into understanding the process of each country’s consolidating of science and science communication, it is important to note the history and impacts of colonisation in science as well as other issues.

3. Policies for science communication

In recent times (since the 1990s), different countries have begun to incorporate references to science communication into their legal frameworks, or they have established chapters and regulations specific to the matter. In particular, 14 countries in the region were identified: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay (detailed information on the policies available at Fernandez et al., 2016).

There are different approaches to the incorporation of science communication in policies. There are countries where the only mention of science communication in the legislation is to identify it, recorded in the laws that define the objectives and vision of national science and technological organisations. Legislation can also establish an ad hoc organisation as part of a National Science and Technology System. This is the case in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Ecuador, Panama and Uruguay.

In another group of countries (for example, Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru), some national science legislation dedicates parts or entire chapters to this topic or explicitly provides for resources to encourage the promotion of a scientific culture (the financing of fairs, festivals or awards to encourage science communication, for example).

However, the fact that these policies exist does not mean that they are put into practice, or that they even still exist – at least in full. A study should be carried out to understand the effects of the PUS policies in the different countries of Latin America. However, a general feature observed is the vulnerability of such policies.

Brazil is a sad example of the vulnerability of policies regarding science communication (Massarani and Moreira, 2020, 2021). In 2004, it created the Department of Science Popularisation and Diffusion in the Ministry of Science and Technology, which allowed the design of a policy for the field and a series of incentives for both practice and research in science communication, including calls for funding. This department is now extinct, presumably for the low status given to science communication (and science in general) by the current Brazilian government. Still, in terms of research, some important aspects were put into practice and incorporated into the system in the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). The first is that the main CV online platform, which anyone who wants to apply for funding needs to access, now has sections dedicated to both the practice and the research of science communication. The second is that an advisory committee (CA) was created specifically for science communication. The CAs are the bodies in CNPq linked to the main scientific areas, and help the institution design the rules and evaluate proposals submitted to the council. In other words, science communication researchers can submit proposals to calls for papers and have them evaluated by peers.

Peru is another interesting example of how policies and support to science communication are on a rollercoaster, in a context of communicating science in general. It was one of the first countries in the region to include science communication in its policies. Later, attention to the area was substantially reduced; in 2017, it was created the Special Programme for the Popularisation of Science, Technology and Technological Innovation at the National Council of Science, Technology and Technological Innovation. ³

4. Diplomas, Master’s, and PhD programmes

Concerns about the need to train practitioners and researchers in science communication in Latin America increased in the 1990s. The first postgraduate courses in the area date back to the mid-1990s, according to a study carried out within RedPOP (Massarani et al., 2016). In 2016, when the survey was carried out, 22 programmes were identified in the region, taking into account Diploma, Master’s, and PhD programmes lasting more than 120 hours and held regularly. ⁴ Of the 22 identified programmes, 65% had been established less than 10 years previously, reflecting the fact that more systematic university training only started quite recently in Latin America. Furthermore, they were concentrated in 13 cities in only five countries in the region. However, it is important to highlight that, as the survey was carried out five years ago, new programmes may have been created (or may have disappeared) – in fact, in 2016, we created our Master in Communication of Science, Technology and Health at Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The paths designed by the programmes are different. While the goals defined by several courses reveal their aim to train professionals in science communication, others put a much greater emphasis on the training of researchers in this still emerging field in the region. In both cases, the diversity of the admission requirements is noticeable.

It is worth noting how the different approaches taken by these programmes influence the decision about what they will include – for example, subjects such as education, communication, history, philosophy, epistemology, sociology of science, etc. – reflecting different views about this professional field. Another observation that can be made is the fact that research methodology has been included in all the programmes in Brazil and in two in Mexico.

The curriculum of these 22 programmes does not seem to be unique to each country, yet it seems to be highly influenced by the history of the institution hosting the course. For example, the Master in Science and Culture Communication, held at the Western Technological Institute of Advanced Studies (ITESO) in Mexico, created in 1998 by researchers in communication studies, aims to train professionals in science communication with a solid theoretical basis. This degree provides education to communication professionals supplementing their training with other areas of knowledge as basic sciences, education, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, literature and cultural studies. Other courses were specifically devised to promote professional development, such the Specialisation in Public Communication of Science and Science Journalism at the National University of Córdoba in Argentina, which provides tools for communicating science through various means.

5. Research in science communication

The presence of Latin American researchers in the three main international journals in science communication (Public Understanding of Science; Science Communication; and JCOM –The Journal of Science Communication) has been low (Guenther and Joubert, 2017). Although Brazil is among the top 10 countries according to authors’ institutions, its researchers account for only 56 papers, equivalent to 1.6% of the total published; the top 10 countries included US, Canada and European countries, plus Japan (with 1.8% of the papers). Furthermore, most of the papers are published in JCOM (48), while Science Communication has published only two and PUS has published only nine prior to 2016, the period analysed in the study. It should be said that JCOM allows authors to submit papers in different languages, with the journal taking responsibility for translation into English.

However, although the Latin American research in the field is almost invisible in these important journals, it does exist.

I and my colleagues carried out an extensive search on the Internet of papers related to science communication linked to Latin American researchers and/or relating to Latin America, looking at databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and the Latin American Scielo, and Latin American journals that are in some way linked to science communication (for example, museology, communication, education, etc.) (Massarani et al., 2017). ⁵

We found 609 academic science communication papers published since the 1980s up to September 2016 (when the last search was carried out) by 1199 authors from 244 institutions focusing on science communication in Latin American countries. The papers were published by 80 academic journals, most of them regional journals. It is important to note that the absence of articles published prior to that year is due to a limitation of the study methodology, since we only consulted online databases. On the other hand, despite all the efforts of our group, some papers were still ‘invisible’, as illustrated by the fact that later we found an additional 60 papers in Argentina when looked at the CVs of the main researchers in that specific country (a search that required a different, very time-consuming, approach).

The first paper identified in our study was published in 1985. From 2009, we observe a steady increase, reaching 99 articles published in 2014 – the same year that the PCST Conference was held in Brazil (which may or may not be a coincidence). ⁶

The largest concentration of publications is in Brazil, consisting of 509 of the 609 articles of the corpus (83% of the total). A long way second comes Colombia, followed by Argentina and Mexico. However, it is important to highlight that an important part of the academic production of, for example, Colombia, Argentina and Mexico, which have an installed capacity for academic research in the area, can (and must) be ‘invisible’, because most research is published in books or printed journals and is not available via the Internet. But, also, it should be highlighted that Brazil has made efforts in the last decades to strengthen its peer-reviewed journals and make access widely and freely available both for authors and readers, which contributed substantially to the publication of peer-reviewed papers and their visibility.

One finding of the study was the low collaboration between countries. Only 18 of the 609 articles collected were the product of collaborations. We also observed a need to explore new methodological approaches.

Based on the information we collected from the RedPOP study, we have succeeded in creating a branch of JCOM dedicated to Latin America, in order to concentrate papers on science communication. Before, only one journal – Revista CTS: Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad – was specifically dedicated to the field in the region.

6. And . . .

In the last 30 years, significant changes have taken place in research in science communication in Latin America. From its embryonic stages in the 1990s, researchers from different institutions here started carrying out studies in science communication and publishing them in important journals in the region. However, production in the field is scattered across different journals, which is important, on the one hand, for disseminating the voice of science communication as far as possible in different publications. On the other hand, it is sometimes difficult to find papers in the field. More journals dedicated specifically to the field would help researchers to discuss their studies, share methodologies and consolidate the feeling of being part of a science communication research community.

Furthermore, an important challenge is to give more visibility to Latin American sci-comm research internationally. This lack of visibility can be caused by ‘internal’ causes, such as the language barrier (even those who speak English may face difficulties writing in that language). The stage of research in Latin America should also be highlighted. Many papers are still descriptive – an important step for digging deeper into the little-known world of science communication in the region and its social, cultural, economic and political contexts. However, exploring new methodological approaches would be more than welcomed – a criticism that is not limited to Latin America, but applies worldwide in the field.

Yet, external causes can also contribute to the low presence of Latin American studies in international journals. In that sense, a question that remains is: are papers from the so-called developing world evaluated in a more cautious way than manuscripts from the so-called developed world? It is indeed a strong statement to make, based on anecdotal experiences only. For example, I once submitted a paper on GM crops in Brazilian newspapers and the peer reviewer asked: ‘Why is a paper from Brazil important?’ – in a context where Brazil is the second worldwide producer of GM food and significant controversies have been observed among different sectors of society. Would such a referee raise the same question if the paper had referred to the US, Canada or a European country? In that direction, some of the main international science communication journals have been gradually becoming more inclusive in terms of countries and perspectives, a movement that must be intensified if we want a field that reflects the diversity of voices and cultures across the globe.

The lack of opportunities for training researchers in science communication is also an important challenge in Latin America, which obviously is also related to the quality of the papers being published (or rejected). There are few programmes at the Master’s and/or PhD level in the region, and they are concentrated in a few cities and countries. Most researchers come from different fields – which is good for consolidating a multidisciplinary field – but few of them have training in science communication. Most of them also work in isolation and, in many cases, cannot dedicate themselves fully to research in science communication. Some of them work as a researcher in another field, or they may be a practitioner for whom research is not part of their job description. In that sense, more collaborations among groups nationally and in different countries would be a very good strategy for strengthening the field. More recognition for researchers in science communication is also very important.

The instability in Latin America – in particular referring to economic and political issues – also has an important impact on the development of the field in the region. Many countries have been building policies, bodies and institutions relating to science communication, but every change of government – which usually happens every 4 years – may represent a wave destroying the sandcastle. Besides the need for constant reconstruction, the lack of memory is a challenge: for example, Peru was one of the first countries in the region to have a policy for science communication, but nobody was aware of it when we mapped the science communication policies in the region. Good opportunities for learning lessons are simply lost.

An important aspect in the field of science communication is the need to link practice and research, with mutual nourishment between the two sectors. More than in most of the scientific fields this is mandatory in science communication, since it is beneficial for both sides. From the practice perspective, evidence from research can help improve the quality of the activities or support and inspire the design of new proposals. From the perspective of research, the reality of science communication is a source of inspiration and a whole field of study.

This has been particularly relevant at a time when the informational ecosystem in science communication has been transforming, with social networks playing an increasingly important role as a space for access to and the co-construction of scientific information – with all the benefits and challenges that this implies. On the one hand, sectors of society are empowered beyond the scientific community and science communicators themselves. But, on the other, social networks have been an important source of fake news. A side effect of this situation was observed in a recent study, in which young Brazilians reported being more passive than previous generations in their search for scientific information, as they felt inundated with information they found was not always reliable.

Last but not least, there is the effect of the pandemic in the field, which has amplified the situation just described in the previous paragraph. The whole world has been dramatically hit by COVID-19, but Latin America has been more impacted than most. Many countries in the region are vulnerable due to the lack of measures against the virus and having no access to a basic health system, including for example the lack of oxygen and vaccine shortages. Due to these factors, the number of deaths in the region has been huge, in conjunction with the social impact, including (but not limited to) unemployment and poverty. Brazil, with one of the most relatively well-structured health systems in the region and a robust system of vaccination, has been strongly affected by denialism and a massive wave of fake news.

In a context of the ‘infodemic’ caused by a tsunami of pre-prints, papers and other information materials related to COVID-19, as well as misinformation, science and science communication have been playing an important role in fighting the disease in Latin America. New science communication initiatives have emerged, and scientists have become more available for interviews.

Referring to research in science communication, the new ecosystem (which existed before the pandemic but has become significantly amplified with the health emergency) has imposed important challenges, starting with the massive amount of data available through social networks in particular, an important source of information for the public. From a scenario where many studies focused on ‘simple’ objects (for example studies about one museum or one newspaper) and where content analysis was the most frequent approach, a whole world of possibilities has opened up. Furthermore, researchers have been facing the need to learn other strategies for collecting and analysing data, for example using software. In the fields of museum studies (an important area of research in Latin America) and the perception of science (still an emerging field), remote strategies have been developed for both individual and group interviews and focus groups, which also opens the possibility (and brings more complexity) of including subjects from different contexts and countries. In relation to the theoretical approach, science communication researchers have more than ever been learning from different fields and proposing new approaches.

In other words, the field has been developing substantially over the last 30 years in Latin America, but there is still a lot to do. As an emerging field in any other part of the world, we have learned from our mistakes and successes against the backdrop of a changing society in a changing world. The challenges are similar globally, but the reality in a developing country is different. In addition, we want to build a science communication, both practical and academic, that is locally relevant – not just copying models that have worked well in other regions.