Abstract
Since 1985, the Science Circus program has recruited science graduates Australia-wide and provided them with science communication training leading to a university degree. On qualifying these graduates demonstrate highly diverse career paths reflecting the relevance of science communication training to other disciplines. Graduates, by their activities, have contributed to the growth of science communication as an academic discipline and an “industry”—both in Australia and abroad. It suggests that science communication training can have impact far beyond narrowly defined disciplines and skill sets, and this impact is worthy of further exploration.
Internationally, the discipline of science communication is comparatively new. The practice is, however, as long established as science itself (Rifkin, Longnecker, Leach, Davis, & Orthia, 2009). The concept does not reside only with scholars, such as Michael Faraday, who often delivered lectures about scientific concepts to a “public” at the Royal Institution in the United Kingdom. The publics that Faraday and his ilk addressed were upper- and middle-class dilettantes who were already enthralled by the new natural philosophy.
The notion of engaging nonspecialist audiences with science has gained increased prominence since the 1990s, especially now that fund administering bodies want to see a worthwhile return on their investment and so, contractually, require fund recipients to communicate their work to the public (see, e.g., requirements of Horizon 2020 grant recipients in the European Union, 2014). Richard Holliman (2016) argued in The Guardian that science communication has created a change in the culture of how research is prioritized, practiced, and governed. This is an advance on the earlier conception of communication of research results being a form of “debt repayment” by the scientists in return for research funded by public monies (Triese & Weigold, 2002).
Others have described the development of science communication as a discipline and the growth of its research base (Lewenstein, 2015). Previous studies of communication training have examined the impact of training on communication practice (Besley, Dudo, Yuan, & Ghannam, 2016) but comparatively few studies have looked at what the other impacts of training scientists to communicate might be. What, specifically, then is the benefit of actually training scientists to describe their work in a manner that is engaging and accessible to a variety of audiences?
A survey of employers of graduates from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) conducted for the Chief Scientist of Australia found that communication was “overwhelmingly” identified as an important skill for the workplace (Prinsley & Baranyai, 2015, p. 2). It is then reasonable to assume that graduates of STEM degrees, who have also undertaken science communication training, could be perceived as more valuable to prospective employers. Earlier writers have also emphasized the role of communicating science to various publics as a means of enabling informed decision making (Triese & Weigold, 2002), and other, more recent, studies have highlighted the need for scientists to effectively communicate with the public in order to build trust and enable effective dialogue (Mikulak, 2011).
These recent endorsements echo the reasons for the development of a science communication postgraduate course in Australia over 30 years ago—the public “face” of which is the Shell Questacon Science Circus (Science Circus). The Science Circus is one of the longest, if not the longest, running programs in the world. Each year this university-based science communication training program recruits up to 16 graduates from scientific disciplines from around Australia via competitive process. These postgraduate students undertake a comprehensive year of training—detailed in a later section—combining theoretical and practical experiences. A core component of the Science Circus is the fieldwork. The students travel to rural and regional areas of Australia to deliver science shows for school children and set up public exhibitions of hands-on science activities using ultraportable exhibits. It is a collaborative venture by the Australian National University (ANU), Questacon—the National Science and Technology Centre, and Shell Companies in Australia, now boasting more than 400 alumni.
The impacts of such a training program are not well documented. In 2013, Mellor wrote a qualitative account of the effect that graduates from the master’s course at Imperial College London had on the development of science communication in Britain. The present article will provide an overview of the influence of the Science Circus on alumni career paths and skill development. It also examines what effects this course may have had on the evolution of science communication as a discipline within Australia and its impacts nationally and internationally.
Science Communication as an Academic Discipline
As recently as 2010, there was still some debate as to whether science communication was actually a recognized field of study and an academic discipline in its own right (Trench & Bucchi, 2010). This debate does leave science communication programs in universities somewhat vulnerable. Some argued, however, that the presence of formal training in the field at a tertiary level strongly contributed to the development of the disciplinary status of science communication (Gascoigne et al., 2010).
The theoretical underpinnings, and teachers, of science communication courses can be found in multiple cognate areas including science, education studies, social studies of science, and communication studies (Mulder et al., 2008). The range of institutional locations adds to the variety of teaching methods and content of courses offered; however, as Mellor (2013) notes, it could also be indicative of the lack of recognition within academia of science communication as a discipline within its own right. Indeed, the inherent nature of science communication theory and practice is interdisciplinary (Mulder et al., 2008). Although interdisciplinarity can be considered a strength, Trench (2012) argues it is also a weakness in terms of institutional instability. Mellor (2013) supports this assertion describing the vulnerability of science communication courses, especially in matters of conflicting expectations and economic viability, when who “owns” science communication is not easily determined.
Despite the debates over status, institutionally and academically, science communication has established itself in universities internationally (Trench, 2012). The need for science communicators, or scientists who are trained to communicate, has also increased (Dudo & Besley, 2016). Therefore, whether it is considered as a discipline, as belonging to science or not, is moot. We argue it is now more important to identify what the impact and influence of science communication training is on those who are trained, and also on the wider disciplines and environments in which they work. This article attempts to do this, using 30 years of science communication training in Australia as a case study.
History of Science Communication in Australia
We do not seek here to cover the development of science communication within Australia per se, as others have already compiled comprehensive overviews (Bryant, 2001; Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2011). Rather, this article will describe the history and development of science communication as a taught, academic discipline in Australia.
Trench (2012) identified the Science Circus program taught at the ANU in Canberra as one of the first programs in science communication in the world. This categorization as “one of the first” excludes programs in science writing and science journalism which were already well established (Trench, 2012). The development of the program coincided with the creation of the first interactive science center in Australia (Bryant, Gore, & Stocklmayer, 2015a). The Science Circus program emphasized the communication of science to nonscientists; the academic program is described in greater detail in a later section.
Around the same time as the development of the graduate program at ANU, one of the first professional associations for science communicators—the Australian Science Communicators—also formed. Across Australia, 375 people joined as foundation members, representing a broad range of backgrounds and occupations but all with a shared interest in communicating science to a public audience (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2011). This interest in engaging the general public with science was further reflected in the offerings of some of the larger universities around the nation (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2011).
Over time, the early courses opened and closed until a consolidated offering emerged from about three universities: University of Western Australia, University of Queensland, and the ANU (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 2011). The formation of the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS) at the ANU in 1996 also owes its origin to the graduate program, and is considered by the Australian Science Communicators to have “heralded the start of the science communication movement” (Australian Science Communicators, 2013, para. 1) in Australia. The graduates of the CPAS courses then, can also be considered to be part of this movement.
Research Aim and Scope
This study attempts to chart the way that the provision of formal science communication training to science graduates affected their subsequent careers. First, we will describe the evolution and development of the Science Circus as a formal academic course. We will then present data from the Science Circus graduates describing their backgrounds before undertaking the Science Circus, and their subsequent employment history. Their responses are used to illustrate the range and scope of the discipline of science communication and how employment options for graduates have evolved over time. Our aim is to provide a clear understanding of how, over the past 30 years, the field of science communication has developed and how the members of the Science Circus program have contributed to the field nationally and internationally.
History of the Science Circus
With the exception of science journalism as a subset of journalism, science communication as a discipline did not exist in 1985. Instead, there were filmmakers such as Disney Films or individual enthusiasts ploughing their own furrows. While Disney Films recorded stunning images of wild life, their pictures were compromised by rampant anthropomorphism and image tinkering. The enthusiasts included scientists such as David Attenborough, Julius Sumner Miller, and Fred Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer, whose vision was the Exploratorium of San Francisco, provided inspiration for several of the Australian science centers that opened in the past century, including Questacon—the National Science and Technology Centre. The history of Questacon, and the development of Australian science centers generally, has been extensively detailed elsewhere (Bryant et al., 2015a, 2015b). The Science Circus is one of Questacon’s extremely successful innovations (Bryant et al., 2015a). The overview presented in this article will draw on this previously published research; however, it also relies on the extensive records of the second author (Bryant) who was instrumental in the establishment of the academic component of the Science Circus.
In 1985, Ainslie Primary School, near Civic Center, was an early home to Questacon. Its success persuaded the Director, Dr. Michael Gore, to take it, or as much of it as he could conveniently move, on tour in rural Australia. He loaded a number of exhibits into a van, recruited some enthusiastic undergraduate students to act as “Explainers,” and set off for Goulburn, New South Wales. As a pilot study, the trip was a great success, receiving much publicity. Further successful expeditions occurred over the next 2 years. Gore resolved that an itinerant Science Circus would continue when the Questacon moved to the Parliamentary Triangle in 1988.
Students were recruited Australia-wide, to reinforce the idea that the Science Circus was Australian and not exclusively Canberran. Their selection was based on their academic records, as well as their potential to be trained as engaging communicators. Usually, this was determined via a written application and a short video of them doing a simple science demonstration for an audience, which could range from one or two parents or friends through to a whole school class. The purpose was to ensure that they had a foundation of public speaking which could be built on, and the capacity to become a Science Circus presenter. They would become formal students of ANU for 1 year, at the end of which they would each receive a graduate certificate. For about half the year, they would tour regions of Australia with the Circus; in Canberra, they would undertake course work. On completion, it was assumed that they would resume their science careers, apply what they had learned within their disciplines, and so act as a leavening in a sector famous for its reluctance to communicate its science to the general public. As it turned out, this rarely happened as data presented later will show.
A proposal to include ANU in the Science Circus project was drawn up and, after some initial discussions, was eventually approved by ANU Council in 1987. Paradoxically, nonscientists were more enthusiastic in their support than scientists. Gore then made a rapid tour of Australian universities, giving lectures and talking to Science Deans and Science Faculties to advertise the new course. After interviews, nine successful graduate student applicants arrived in Canberra in January, 1988. There followed 2 weeks of training and a dress rehearsal at the Queanbeyan Show. In February, the Circus set out for what was to be a highly successful tour of the local region, under the supervision of a Questacon staff member.
In April, the second author who, as Dean of Science, had the responsibility for the program at ANU, received a deputation from the students. Politely but forcefully they criticized the program for sending them out underprepared—“Have you any idea of what you’re doing?” said the spokeswoman. They had a point; the only training they had received was in the science of the shows and exhibits and that first trip had relied on their enthusiasm and attractive personalities. Bryant and Gore (1999) immediately responded by adding courses in public speaking, writing simple English, creating shows, and even more training in presentation and academic background. It was the first attempt in Australia to provide a disciplinary underpinning for science communication—there was no “best practice” to emulate. This evolution of the Science Circus course gave rise to a more traditional (coursework and research based) master’s degree program in 1992 (see Bryant & Gore, 1999, for a more detailed account).
In November 1988, the students of the first formal Circus professed themselves weary but delighted with their science communication experience. The audiences had embraced the Circus. The team had established a pattern of performance that persists to the present day and was described in detail by Bryant (2001). It was clear that the students considered that the graduate certificate was too small a reward for a year of hard work. Arrangements were made to upgrade to a graduate diploma in 1990 and to increase the intake of students each year to ease the workload.
From 1990, the students were given more time in Canberra and the existing courses in public speaking and writing plain English were extended. A course on the interpretation of statistics for a general public was added for those who needed it. Project work was also added. It was intended to give the students experience of developing an assessable piece of communication about a scientific matter of public interest, or of writing a submission to a hypothetical employer, using the eclectic skills that they were developing with the Circus. Students were also asked to develop their own science shows for use on tour. A course supervisor was appointed to coordinate the performance demands of Questacon and the academic demands of ANU.
The numbers were gradually increased and, in 1994, 15 students were selected; the annual cohort has remained at 15 or 16 students ever since. Students were also provided with mentors from among the academic staff of the ANU so that in the event of an internal dispute each student had access to an independent advocate to whom they could go for help. By 1997, the coursework content had stabilized and the Course Notes (Bryant’s personal records) stated that the objective of the course work was to develop in scholars the knowledge and practical skills necessary for the communication of science in the contexts of the Science Circus and science centers, and for the promotion of science on a broader basis. It also involves an introduction to group dynamics designed to foster effective team work.
Course content was as follows.
Print and Electronic Media
Science and Society (including interpretation of statistics for a general audience)
Applied Project, to develop a piece of science communication aimed at a defined audience
Research Project, to investigate the effectiveness of an attempt at science communication (involves statistical design)
Fieldwork Placement, when the student spends time with some public or private instrumentality to experience at first hand efforts to communicate with the public
Over the years, continuous interaction between the students and the supervisory group has refined the course offerings, and recently, 30 years on, the excellence of the course was endorsed by a properly constituted review of the Science Circus. It recommended that the Science Circus Graduate Diploma should become a master’s course, with effect from 2014.
The master’s degree course comprises formal subjects in the fundamentals of science communication, science and the media, science communication and the web and exhibition design, with extensive fieldwork through science performances in schools and public venues.
The Science Circus has now, in 2016, travelled hundreds of thousands of miles across Australia, visiting more than 500 towns and communities, including 90 indigenous and remote settlements. Some venues have been revisited many times. Typically, the Science Circus covers the entire country every 5 years. The student teams have, between them over the 30 years, performed more than 15,000 science shows. They have provided professional development workshops for over 5,000 teachers. Of all the teachers encountered on the teams’ visits, 85% of those providing feedback report increased enthusiasm for science among their students (Questacon, 2015).
The Science Circus is unique. Each year it has a new team so its freshness and enthusiasm remain high. It is lucky that Australia is so large—in England, say, travelling science shows have less impact because the proximity of rural communities to the big cities enable people to make frequent excursions to urban Science Centers. Recently, a form of the Circus has been transported to Southern Africa, also characterized by widely scattered rural communities and distant cities, and has met with great success (Walker, Stocklmayer, & Grant, 2013).
The Science Circus Africa project has been fundamental in assisting in the development of science centers, outreach programs, and academic science communication programs in South Africa, as well as Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius, and Zambia (Bryant et al., 2015a). A version of the Science Circus called Science on the Move—an ultraportable travelling exhibition with accompanying shows—has been donated for use in KwaZulu Natal in South Africa; a result of a partnership between CPAS and the Unizul Science Centre in 2003 (Bryant et al., 2015a). Science on the Move has also been useful in the Asia Pacific region, along with a Questacon developed travelling exhibition “Fascinating Science” which similarly embraces the Science Circus exhibit ultraportable model. Both of these exhibitions have been touring the Asia Pacific region for around 20 years (Durant & McKinnon, 2016). Other versions of the Science Circus have toured to Vietnam (Australian Government, 2013) and Japan (Questacon, 2014).
Programs emulating the Science Circus model of partnership between universities and science centers have appeared, although it is more difficult to say whether these were directly derived from the Science Circus program. Professor Gore was an invited keynote speaker at the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Museu da Vida (Museum of Life) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was only through that invitation he discovered that their touring science program, Mobile Science—Life and Health for Everyone (Ciência Móvel—Vida e Saúde para Todos) was directly derived from the Science Circus model (pers comm). Laurentian University and Science North in Ontario, Canada, have partnered to deliver a similar model of science communication academic program with a fieldwork component in a science center; however, the relationship of this model to the Science Circus is not clear. It is more likely it evolved from the vibrant North American science center network.
Techniquest science center was established with the University of Cardiff in the United Kingdom, emulating the Questacon/ANU model, as a result of a visiting professor seeing the latter in action (Bryant et al., 2015a). Even from this limited evidence, we can see the program has had tangible impact on science communication practice and training internationally. We turn now to exploring what kind of impact the program may have had on its students.
Method
The data collection for this article was made possible because of a mailing list (eScinapse) that has been in existence in some form since 1989. It is a crucial mechanism for connecting the Science Circus alumni, all of whom can elect to join, and which is used to share news, job opportunities, and notices of upcoming relevant events. About 98% of all current and former students have chosen to remain on this list. This was confirmed immediately when this study began as the list was being used to coordinate forthcoming 30th anniversary celebrations. The list membership represents the full history of the Science Circus cohort—providing a sample population to track changes over time. List members were e-mailed to request their input to this study via a short survey and submission of their curriculum vitae (CV).
Survey
The survey asked alumni to detail their qualifications and discipline specialization before they began the Science Circus, and then what—if any—other study they undertook after the Science Circus. They were then asked where they were currently working, both in a geographic and a descriptive sense. This was done to map the diversity of roles in which individuals trained in science communication could work, as well as to get a sense of the international employment opportunities. Alumni were also asked about how they perceived job opportunities when they graduated, to examine further how the demand for “science communicators” may have changed over the 30-year interval. Finally, alumni were asked to describe how they felt the Science Circus had influenced their career path or helped their career—if at all. The survey used a mix of open and closed response questions. Open-ended responses were collated, grouped first by response (i.e., a lot vs. not at all) and then sorted into themes.
Qualitative Analysis of Curricula Vitae
Within the e-mailed invitation to participate in the study was included the request for alumni to send through their CV. Each was read carefully and lists compiled of academic qualifications obtained by alumni before and after the Circus, and the most recent posts that they had occupied. Those submissions in each decade that were the most completely detailed were chosen for the case studies.
Results
Quantitative Results: Survey
Of a potential cohort of about 400 alumni, responses from 203 individuals were received. The data were then screened for incomplete and unusable answers which were removed, leaving a complete data set of 185 responses. The largest group of respondents (n = 38) had completed the Science Circus program within the prior 5 years (2010-2015), with similar numbers of alumni from between 6 and 20 years prior (1995-2009, Figure 1). The smaller number of respondents from the first years of the Science Circus (26-30 years, Figure 1) is expected as these annual cohorts were not as large as subsequent years.
Number of respondents from each “cohort” in Science Circus history (n = 185).
In the trial years of the Science Circus (1985-1987), the students were still enrolled in science degrees while volunteering with the Circus. All respondents from subsequent years had completed a science degree before commencing with the Science Circus, as this was an admission requirement. Twenty-five respondents also held an arts degree. Of those that provided details of specialization, education, journalism, and business were the most commonly held qualifications with six, three, and two respondents, respectively. Almost all areas of science were represented, including medical sciences, engineering, technology, and environmental sciences. Seventeen respondents held postgraduate qualifications, nine with graduate diplomas, and eight with PhDs in the sciences.
After completing the Science Circus program, many of the alumni went on to further studies (Figure 2). The majority pursued a master’s degree (48), with almost equal numbers pursuing a graduate diploma (29) or a PhD (27). Of those who indicated they undertook further study, 18 had taken two additional qualifications and another 8 had taken three or more, ranging anywhere from another bachelor’s degree or vocational college qualification (Certificate IV) through to a PhD.
Comparison of qualifications held by Science Circus alumni before entering the program and in the years afterward.
Before commencing the Circus, 29 respondents had worked overseas and 156 respondents had not. In the years after completing the Circus, the numbers are nearly equal with 95 respondents now having had experience working overseas and 90 who have not. Prior to the Circus, those who had worked overseas did so in predominantly scientific- and research-based roles (n = 9) or as teachers of English (n = 7). Others worked as camp counsellors or nannies (n = 5) or in hospitality and/or tourism or administrative roles (n = 5). These roles spanned about 15 countries. After completing the Science Circus, the geographical range had expanded with at least 58 countries listed as places of employment. The variety of roles held in these countries had also grown (Figure 3).
Roles held in countries other than Australia before and after the Science Circus.
A relatively small number of Science Circus alumni still worked as teachers and researchers or scientists, and to a lesser extent in hospitality, tourism, and administrative roles. However, the biggest growth area was in science engagement and communication roles. The science engagement category comprises science show presenters and developers, science center staff, and science festival staff of all levels, and those involved in public engagement with science programs such as the British Association for the Advancement of Science in the United Kingdom. Communication roles, excluding media, also increased as graduates worked as science communication specialists, communication and engagement officers for research and medical organizations, or communication trainers in developing countries. Development work was common across most of the categories, with many graduates working in capacity building roles in communication, research, and public engagement skills in government, scientific, and educational institutions around the world.
Respondents were asked to provide their current field of employment, either within Australia or internationally, and more detail was collected from the provided CVs. An indicative list of the institutions that have employed Science Circus graduates—often more than once—is provided in an appendix. 1 Table 1 provides a summary of the responses. What is immediately striking is the prevalence of the number of graduates who work in government at all levels (n = 40), are self-employed/freelancers (27), or are science center staff (25). Freelancers/self-employed respondents work in a wide variety of fields, ranging from a musician, a barrister, and a theatre director through to writers, editors, and working in start-up companies. Nine respondents have started their own companies offering specialist education activities or communication and marketing services. The “other” category is similarly popular (28) and includes respondents working in either communication (n = 10) or administrative or managerial roles (n = 7) in universities and research centers, nongovernment organizations, and in the corporate sector. The remaining respondents in this category are working as doctors (n = 4) or in other specialist roles such as a vet and an exploration geologist.
Current Fields of Employment of Science Circus Graduates (n = 185).
Note. Some respondents hold multiple roles (i.e., work for Government but also do freelance science writing) hence the total of responses in this table exceed 185.
Qualitative Results: Survey
The areas of employment of the Science Circus graduates appear to have grown in tandem with the degree. Graduates were asked how they perceived job opportunities in science communication when they graduated. Common themes emerged across the 30-year period.
The first and most common theme from all graduates was contradictory. It highlighted the seemingly niche nature of science communication as a discipline, but also the broad applicability of the science communication skills to a range of careers. The initial cohort of students, unsurprisingly, did not find a large job market for science communicators, given it was a field that was just starting: I saw good opportunities, but not many—and all related to science centers and museums. (26-30 years)
Science centers and museums persisted as the perceived major employer of science communication graduates for the first 15 to 20 years of the Science Circus. Among the most recent 10 years of graduates, science centers and museums are still perceived as a source of employment (and Table 1 shows that this is indeed the case): There were few science communicator jobs. Most jobs were at science centers or museums . . . (21-25 years) The job market was terrible for science communicators when I graduated. Many people had been laid off by the major science centers in the previous year and jobs were very hard to find. (16-20 years) Yes many opportunities. Most of the opportunities were outreach roles in science centers or as communication officers within Cooperative Research Centers. (11-15 years) I thought there were a few jobs, but within a limited scope (eg science centers and museums). (6-10 years) [In 2013] the science industry/job prospects were not looking good at all. . . . To be a pure science communicator it looked as though you needed to set up your own venture (because museums and science centers were affected by funding cuts) . . . (5 years or less)
Despite the perception that science centers and museums were the main employers, the other prevailing perception was of the broadly applicable skills the graduates had developed through the course. Many of the respondents across the 30 years spoke of how jobs for science communicators were available, but were often not advertised as such, and ultimately it was up to them to identify the relevant job opportunities: The job market was a wide open door. It was whatever opportunity I created. (26-30 years) It opened my eyes to a lot more opportunities than I saw from just doing a science degree. But there wasn’t really a science communication profession then—or it was just forming—I was conscious that I had to create opportunities and that there wouldn’t necessarily be an existing job to walk into. (21-25 years) I definitely saw that the opportunity we were given was fairly unique, providing us with specific talents and skills that only a limited group of people had at the time. (16-20 years) It totally broadened my skill set as a science graduate. There were other courses of study that became appealing (eg genetic counselling) but also new career paths that I was now qualified to throw my hat in for like writing and editing, corporate communications, school programs, teacher training as well as work with museums and [science] centers. (11-15 years) Science communicator as a job description or career title is quite misleading. I discovered there are many avenues for my skills, [but] most wouldn’t include that phrase specifically. Media, sales, marketing, PR, communication, government affairs, journalist etc; the only place you get a “science communication” job title is in a government role. (6-10 years) I saw many opportunities for “transferable skills” to be useful. . . Not many institutions tended to recognize that who they wanted was actually a science communicator, and it took a while to filter through what may or may not have been a science communication job at its core. (5 years or less)
Irrespective of graduates’ perception of the location and availability of job opportunities, another consistent theme emerging from the responses was the competitive nature of the field. This was not as evident in the first 15 years of graduates, but becomes increasingly evident in the latter 15 years as the following responses illustrate: Difficult to break into as few roles for specific science communicators at the time. They were after people [with] experience in roles. This has got better over time. (16-20 years) I truly thought the opportunities were endless and I struggled to decide what to do next and what direction to go in. (11-15 years) Huge diversity of jobs out there, but not a huge number. [You] have to be competitive and with other circus grads too. (6-10 years) I believed there were some jobs but that they were highly sought after, not well paid, quite fun (and some people didn’t leave them!). (5 years or less)
Job availability seemed to be tied to the political and economic climate over the years too, with the fate of science communication jobs similarly tied to that of science funding and public monies: There were no grad jobs offered at Questacon at the end of our circus year and limited jobs elsewhere in Australia. This was due in part I believe to the political climate—reduction in funding of science and sci com programs by extension . . . (5 years or less) I felt that the jobs available in Australia at the time for face to face science communicators were not abundant . . . I viewed the UK market as having more possibilities and thus that’s where I ended up. (6-10 years) The job market in Australia and Europe appeared to be promising. USA was harder for sci com at that time due to the economic crisis . . . (6-10 years) I graduated in the “recession we had to have.” There weren’t many jobs for anyone—science communicators or scientists. So I went and studied a Dip Ed. (21-25 years)
Respondents were asked if their participation in the Science Circus influenced their career. The majority (n = 132) indicated that the Circus had provided a lot of influence, with 46 respondents saying “a little” and 5 saying no influence at all. Two respondents skipped this question. In categorizing the responses to this question, three dominant themes were identified. The first category, specific to those who identified the career influence as “a lot” describes how the Science Circus was pivotal in creating their career path, as illustrated by the following comments: Without doing the Circus I doubt I would have had the confidence to pursue a career in science communication, or known where to start. (16-20 years) Prior to joining the Circus I had intended to return to my alma mater and complete a PhD in experimental physics. My circus experience led my life in a completely different direction. (16-20 years) I was a “research refugee” and didn’t know what I wanted to do as a career. I enrolled in the science circus without really understanding what I was in for, or whether I wanted a career in science communication. After graduating from the circus, I felt I had found a career path that suited me. (5 years or less) Science communication was still a relatively new discipline, only a specialization really, when I went through in 1991. The combination of journalism, performance, and other communication skill development in non-formal learning opened up door[s] for my career. (26-30 years)
The second category, common to respondents stating “a little” or “a lot” of influence refer to specific skills they have attained as a result of their participation in the Science Circus. Many respondents referred to communication skills, public speaking, experience and theoretical knowledge necessary to pursuing science communication roles, and writing skills. However, the most consistently reported “skills” were those related to teamwork and confidence: The circus model provided a great model and training ground for feedback and collegiality, something that I have carried forward in my career. (6-10 years) The Circus gave me real world experience and confidence in myself and my skills. (6-10 years) The confidence to present in front of a range of audiences knowing that you have the skills to make a presentation interesting is critical in just about any role. I think this and the ability to quickly make maybe complex information accessible are key to how Circus has helped my career. Travelling around Australia and working within many different communities made me feel comfortable to interact with anyone, anywhere, which is a career skill and a life skill, like many other skills gained during Circus. (5 years or less)
The final category of responses detailed how the skills they gained from the Science Circus have benefited them in other careers. Many spoke of the professional networks, the liaison and communication skills, and the improvements this has afforded them in what they do, even those who felt the Science Circus had only a little influence as shown by the following comments: Has strengthened the communication focus of what I do in environmental policy. (11-15 years) I found in the Circus my passion for medicine—communication with people about the science that is happening in their own bodies. On a clinical level by doing this well, I can achieve much better patient-doctor partnerships and patients are empowered to take evidence based steps in their own healthcare . . . (5 years or less) It didn’t necessarily dictate my path (sort of sidetracked it a little) but it’s made me a better teacher and greatly influenced the way I do my job now. (5 years or less) The broad applicability of the skills learned in the Science Circus is best summed up by a respondent who indicated that the Science Circus did not influence their career at all: While my career history has not involved major work in a science related field, the communication skills gained from being part of the Science Circus have been invaluable, as all my employment (primarily administration), has involved liaising with a wide range of people from a variety of backgrounds. I consider my time with the Science Circus as invaluable as it gave me the communication skills grounding, which can really be applied to any discipline. (26-30 years)
Qualitative Results: Curricula Vitae
The sample of CV of Circus veterans is made up of submissions from 42 women and 17 men. The ratio of women to men (2.5) is not significantly different from that of whole cohort (2.3).
Contributions to Their Respective Disciplines Through Academic Publishing
The Circus veterans up to 1988 are atypical. They were self-selected physics and math students. Four of the PhDs and the one DSc in math/physics come from this group and that now includes at least four full Professors. Five of the provided CVs came from undergraduates in math and physics recruited in the first years of the Science Circus from 1986 to 1987. These five scientists between them published at least 189 scientific papers—at least, because two of them only listed papers that they had published within the past few years. The publications were all in old, highly regarded, well-established journals of physics and related disciplines; 32% were in math/physics, 25% were in biophysics, and 42% in physical chemistry. The remaining 1% (two papers) were published in the past 5 years in a newly established science communication journal.
In the decade starting with 1988 and ending in 1997, 22 CVs provided only a total of 83 academic papers. Almost 90% of these came from just three science communication graduates and were in the field of education. From the cohort that graduated from the Circus between in the decade from 1988 to 2007, 18 CVs were submitted, that quoted 77 papers that the graduates considered worth including. The majority (57 papers or 74%) were in “mainline” science, the two authors concerned having resumed orthodox scientific careers in geochemistry and chemistry.
Six papers (8%) were contributions to the discipline of science communication from three authors, while 14 (18%) spread among several authors were concerned with the practice of science communication.
Nine CVs were submitted for the period from 2008 to 2015. Only 23 publications were quoted by this group, hardly surprising as many students were only a year or two out from their bachelor’s degrees. Nine of these publications were in biochemistry, and two were in education. The remainder, 12, were concerned with the practice of science communication, not its theory.
Qualitative Results: Case Studies
Pseudonyms are used in the presentation of these representative graduate case studies taken from the three decades of Science Circus operation and one from a graduate before the formalization of the Science Circus as an academic course.
Pre-1988
Mary graduated with first class Honors and several academic prizes in 1991 after being one of the original members of the Science Circus. She obtained a master’s degree in 1993 and a highly regarded PhD in 1998. She then won a prestigious European research fellowship. In 1999, she married and has since had two children. She resumed her postdoctoral work in the United States and is currently a professor in a major American university. Her CV also includes publications, conference presentations, and professional affiliations.
She writes “My career path does not directly have to do with science communication in Australia but I am grateful for the role that Questacon played in my choices and career!”
1988-1997
Cassandra was part of the Circus in the middle of its first decade after 1988. Married with children, her career has been totally within the boundaries set by the communication of science. Following a science degree and a year in the Circus, Cassandra undertook a master’s degree in a subject distantly related to her first degree. She subsequently worked for a science center and a State Health Commission in Australia. In the United Kingdom, she was employed first by a century-old public science association, then a London museum and finally as a research officer consultant for the Surrey County Council. Back in Australia, she was appointed as executive officer to an Australian science society, managing its internal and external communication needs for the past 10 years. She also lists on her CV her general publications, conference presentations, and the posters and exhibitions that she has helped design.
1998-2007
Esmeralda comes from the early part of the second decade of the Circus’ history. She achieved first class Honors in science and joined the Science Circus. Immediately on completing her Circus stint, she moved into a series of short-lived jobs in a museum, a national park, an international science festival, and as exhibition developer, before spending more than 7 years in the United Kingdom in various roles with the National Museum of Science and Industry. Then, concerned about the need for a sustainable Australia, she joined a major investment property group “known for its global leadership in sustainability” where she is a senior executive. Esmeralda’s CV emphasizes her communication skills, her teamwork, and ability to relate to people and lists her conference papers and speaking engagements. She has won several professional awards.
2008-2015
Teddy is a Circus veteran from the latter part of the third decade of Circus history. Graduating in science from an Australian university, he allowed some time to elapse before commencing with the Circus. During that time, he worked, successively, as a laborer, as a technical officer with a scientific institute, a research assistant with an environmental consultancy, and field researcher with a nongovernment survey organizations. Since his Circus year, he has worked as a facilitator for science workshops. In his CV, he also lists his duties, skills, and achievements, emphasizing the science communication components.
Discussion
The results presented in this article describe the development of science communication as an academic discipline offered as a university course and as a profession within Australia. A summary of the employment of graduates in science communication in the first 15 years paints a picture both of a widespread and developing interest in the course and a burgeoning science communication industry. It appears that, at that time, the graduates were fulfilling a need widely experienced in the community for a “science communication industry” that hitherto had not existed—or had not yet been identified as such. In Australia, the spectrum of employment within this industry was, and remains, wide. Employers included many Australian Universities, in their communications or science education departments and in schools.
A survey of the most recent positions (2012-2015) occupied by veterans who reflected, in 2015, on their careers 30, 20, or even as little as one year later, produced a rich sample that confirms both the breadth and the depth of the science communication industry and the employers of science communicators in the 21st century in Australia and overseas. In particular, it illustrates the contributions to the development of the science communication industry and discipline made by veterans of the Science Circus. Future studies may wish to explore if the geographic “spread” of graduates is common in other science communication courses, or indeed other degree programs.
Of note is the recurring notion of broad applicability of the skills graduates developed in the Science Circus to later careers, irrespective of whether they were in science communication roles. This reinforces the importance of communication skills to many fields, including STEM, and the value it adds to a STEM graduate from a potential employer’s perspective (Bryant, 2001). The results found here echo those of Mellor (2013), who noted the diversification of science communication jobs in the United Kingdom, and similarly that this variety is a benefit to the science communication community as well.
As noted in Mellor’s article, and in Trench (2012), this same variety is also the source of the instability of the discipline particularly within an academic realm. As the results showed in this study, some of the graduates of the Science Circus did contribute to the scientific output of their disciplines, especially those from the early years. Later, graduates similarly contributed to the development of a research body in science communication journals too. However, the bulk of the work of science communicators appeared to happen external to an academic area. Graduates worked extensively in public engagement activities, government policy, development projects, research organizations, and other scientific and business fields. Although this does demonstrate the much wider, dare we say global, impact of science communication graduates, it also has the potential to create a sense that the field belongs to everyone yet no one, which Mellor (2013) also concluded.
Mellor’s (2013) article does not touch on the influence of external political and economic pressures. The results presented in this article suggest that economic downturns in Australia influenced job availability, which is to be expected across all disciplines; however, the fate of science communication jobs similarly appears to be tied to the fortunes of scientific funding. Between 2010 and 2016, there were multiple changes in government in Australia, especially in the leadership of the major parties, which led to a rather chaotic scientific agenda. This created some new jobs in the sector for areas such as climate change (which were also subsequently removed with a change in government), but other changes have forced large employers of scientists—and science communicators—such as CSIRO to cut the numbers of scientists and science communication staff drastically (Towell, Smith, & Phillips, 2014). In many ways, it appears that science communicators are in a self-perpetuating cycle. They must work to engage people, including governments, in science to gain support for science and research which in turn will help ensure that science communication roles are required.
This study presents data giving a broad overview of the impact of science communication training on graduate careers, and the development of the field is reflected in the burgeoning diversity of jobs they assume. This reflects a challenge for the Science Circus program as it also must evolve its course content and offerings to ensure that the graduates are well equipped to operate in a rapidly changing employment landscape. Future studies may wish to conduct more in-depth explorations of the impact and contributions of science communication graduates at a smaller, more focused community level to gain a better understanding of what science communication activities have contributed to various sectors such as policy, research, and education. Employers should also be consulted to gain a full understanding of their needs in order to ensure science communication training programs remain relevant. In addition, further examination of the impact of science communication training should look beyond skills development. A more holistic picture would be useful for a more accurate assessment of the impact of science communication training and industry.
Conclusion
The development of science communication as a taught academic discipline within Australia occurred in parallel with the development of a science communication profession, both within the country and abroad. With the Science Circus as a longitudinal example, the results presented here show how the diversity of roles for science communication trained graduates has increased over the 30 years the course has been running. The appeal and utility of the Science Circus model is further illustrated by its adoption in other countries (Durant & McKinnon, 2016). The Science Circus continues to run, now entering its 32nd year, and must continue to meet the needs of its participants and the organizations they will ultimately go and work for.
Part of the appeal of the course for its graduates (and arguably future, potential graduates) is that it prepares them for a wide diversity of careers due to the highly transferable skills they develop. Although the Science Circus students entered as scientists, many have taken their scientific and science communication skills and qualifications to other areas. This study has shown that Science Circus graduates are predominantly working in government roles, or creating new career paths for themselves as specialist freelancers. They are also increasingly taking their skills and working internationally. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine what effect this has on, say, policy development processes, or if those Circus alumni working as doctors are better able to communicate clearly with their patients. But, are these science communication graduates bringing new approaches and ideas to other countries and other disciplines? We have seen a change in the prevalence of science communication roles in Australia and where these jobs “fit” over the past 30 years. Has the same occurred in other disciplines internationally? This would be a fruitful area for future research.
It is suggested that, in view of the achievements of Circus veterans, science communication training needs to focus far beyond the development of specific skills. More holistic assessment of impact at a community or societal level should be explored to gain a more complete, and accurate, insight into what science communication training provides to those who undertake it and ultimately to the communities they serve.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.