Trust is the basis of science communication: so, how do we ensure our processes are robust and innovative?

Here I am going to reveal gaps in my knowledge of both scientific research and science communication, as I explore and think about some concepts borrowed from the fields of Philosophy of Science which are informing my understanding of the science communication work we do at Cooked Illustrations.

The first time I heard about Philosophy of Science as a field of inquiry was around early 2021, during the Future of Science Communication Conference. During a breakout session, I had the chance to have a one-on-one conversation with Dr George Barimah. He first introduced me to the term laypeople. I took to this word, heavy with meaning and kind-of jargony, and used it during presentations to groups of scientists to specifically to refer to the kinds of audiences who most benefited from the work we do at Cooked Illustrations. But it was Dr Barimah’s work on the relationships between laypeople (general public) and experts (scientists, researchers) in knowledge transfer (communication, education, etc.) that got me thinking about the role of a science communicator:

“Do lay persons have any role to play in ensuring that they acquire reliable information from the testimony of scientific experts? It appears intuitive that lay persons should exercise some epistemic responsibility in assessing the testimony of scientific experts… However, how is the public expected to go about this epistemic task, given that the contents of scientific reports are often very advanced for the average member of the public to interrogate?”

I read this to imply that the learners have agency about how they learn and, therefore, have responsibility in how they acquire knowledge. It is up learners to critically think about the source of the knowledge, as well as how acquisition of that knowledge takes places. However, where or how do laypeople most often experience knowledge transfer? Dr Barimah’s work also introduced me to the idea that when we gain knowledge it is most often not from a direct scientific source like a research paper or from our own experimentation (and in my limited understanding of epistemology, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that those are not given a direct source, and I require correction in this matter). But, rather, it is actually “second-order knowledge” - which is based more on how much a lay-person perceives the source of the information they interact with is trustworthy and reliable.

If I understood Dr Barimah’s work correctly, then the epistemic responsibility to develop trust with lay-people and to question the sources of knowledge appropriately lands heavily upon those of us who work as science communicators.

The work I personally do as a communicator is not in a single field of research, I have worked with marine biologists, sociologists and creative industry researchers. Therefore, there perhaps a higher responsibility on me as a communicator to build trust with the audiences of the researchers I support, as well as my own audience in these very researchers. But, then, how can I judge the source of knowledge as trustworthy if I am, myself, not an expert in the field?

The talk given by Anatolii Kozlov during the SciComm SouthWest conference on the 7th of June 2024 may help us explore this question. As Kozlov explained, different domains of science rely on technical and conceptual methods of inquiry. Marine biology uses different methods than psychology or aesthetic research. As such, there is no “universal language of science”.? It is in the process of inquiry itself where the value lies. Here I may not be doing Kozlov’s work justice: I write this based on a few notes from a talk listened to months ago. But as I wrote before, it is often these words, heavy with meaning spoken at conferences, that are able to tie a lot of divergent thoughts together.

If each research field has its own process of inquiry, and that is where the knowledge lies, then our responsibility as science communicators, as builders of trust, is to create as direct and trustworthy a link between the original source of that trustworthy knowledge and lay-people. But this also begs the question: what is the process of inquiry we at Cooked Illustrations, as a science and visual communication agency, use??

“What is entrusted to artistic and imaginative individuals is the vitality and integrity of their work itself.” P.24 The Creativity Gap, James Heartfield, 2005

While you can read about our process of collaboration hidden among some of our past Case Studies, I do not think I ever questioned the process in these epistemic terms. Perhaps it would be valuable or, at the very least, informative to do so. And as I tried to argue in this article, there is a responsibility to strive for processes, creative and communication both, that remain robust and innovative.?

Written by: Ian Cooke Tapia October, 2024

Credit goes to the thinkers who sparked this article:

George K. Barimah has interest in social epistemology, epistemology of testimony, epistemic trust in science, and how these fields relate to science communication.?

https://www.socrates.uni-hannover.de/en/team/george-barimah?

https://grk2073.org/members/george-barimah/?

Anatolii Kozlov researchers the Philosophy of Science and the spaces in which creative and aesthetic pursuits can “empower scientists into creative forms of science communication.”