Conclusion

Authors
Affiliations

Dan Card

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Danielle DeVasto

Grand Valley State University

In this webtext, we have tried to broaden notions of both science and communication. We suggest viewing science not merely as a set of facts associated with fields such as biology or physics but rather as a systematic problem-solving practice. This shift broadens what we communicate about when we engage in science communication. At the same time, we push against unidirectional, transmission notions of communication in favor of a deliberative frame that privileges dialogue. From this view, the challenge of science communication is to create the conditions for informed dialogue. Taken together, we argue that these notions of science and communication position public engagement as a significant site of science communication.

Further, our examination of the digital tools and modes that mediate such communication suggests the core practices and skills of technical communication are central to public engagement work. And we aren't alone. Consider the U.S. Public Participation Playbook (n.d.). The playbook consisted of a list of 12 "plays" organized around five foci: establish goals, understand the playing field, design participation, facilitate participation, and evaluate and report. Each play consisted of a checklist of recommendations that government managers should follow. For example, "Design Participation" included the plays "Design for inclusiveness" and "Provide multi-tiered paths to participation." The checklist for the former included "Provide accessibility options for persons with disabilities, the aging population and others" as well as "Consider both online and offline support, including a physical version and digital package."

Technical communication research and practice offers valuable insights into effectively conveying complex information to both specialist and nonspecialist audiences as well as designing goal-oriented digital spaces. We find it particularly interesting that many specific recommendations in the U.S. Public Participation Playbook align closely with key areas of focus in recent technical communication scholarship. Below are some examples of these recommendations, along with a selection of relevant work in technical communication:

While science communication is increasingly recognized as an area of interdisciplinary research in its own right, technical communication and writing and rhetoric studies more broadly have much to offer, especially when we look to the spaces where science meets values to inform action.

References

Acharya, Keshab, & Dorpenyo, Isidore. (2023). Translation for social justice and inclusivity in technical and professional communication: An integrative literature review. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 41–63. https://www.techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/15
Cagle, Lauren E., & Herndl, Carl. (2019). Shades of denialism: Discovering possibilities for a more nuanced deliberation about climate change in online discussion forums. Communication Design Quarterly, 7(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3331558.3331561
Cheung, Iva W. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 448–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2759639
Getto, Guiseppe, & Flanagan, Suzan. (2022). Localizing UX advocacy and accountability: Using personas to amplify user agency. Technical Communication, 69(4), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc914783
Gonzales, Laura. (2022). Designing multilingual experiences in technical communication. Utah State University Press. https://doi.org/10.7330/9781646422760
Jones, Natasha, McDavid, Justin, Derthick, Katie, Dowell, Randy, & Spyridakis, Jan. (2012). Plain language in environmental policy documents: An assessment of reader comprehension and perceptions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42(4), 331–371. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.42.4.b
Jones, Natasha N., & Williams, Miriam F. (2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2762964
Kim, YoonJi. (2023). Accessibility and contribution limitations of authoritative climate information: Evaluating the usability and inclusivity of IPCC's website. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 24–40. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/18
McMullin, Michelle, Weech, Shelton, Banat, Hadi, & Dilger, Bradley. (2021). Using iterative persona development to support inclusive research and assessment. In SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 205–212). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472714.3473643
Moore, Kristen R. (2017a). Experience architecture in public planning: A material, activist practice. In Liza Potts & Michael Salvo (Eds.), Rhetoric and experience architecture (pp. 143–165). Parlor Press.
Moore, Kristen R. (2017b). The technical communicator as participant, facilitator, and designer in public engagement projects.Technical Communication, 64(3), 237–253.
O'Keeffe, Willamina H., & Walls, Douglas. (2020). Usability testing and experience design in citizen science: A case study. In SIGDOC '20: Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416768
Richards, Daniel. (2015). Testing the waters: Local users, sea level rise, and the productive usability of interactive geovisualizations. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(3), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792989.2792992
Rose, Emma J. (2016). Design as advocacy: Using a human-centered approach to investigate the needs of vulnerable populations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653494
Rose, Emma J., & Cardinal, Alison. (2021). Purpose and participation: Heuristics for planning, implementing, and reflecting on social justice work. In Rebecca Walton & Godwin Y. Agboka (Eds.), Equipping technical communicators for social justice work: Theories, methodologies, and pedagogies (pp. 75–97). University Press of Colorado.
Rose, Emma J., & Tenenberg, Josh. (2018). Poor poor dumb mouths, and bid them speak for me: Theorizing the use of personas in practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1386005
U.S. public participation playbook. (n.d.). Digital.gov. https://digital.gov/guides/public-participation
Willerton, Russell. (2015). Plain language and ethical action: A dialogic approach to technical content in the 21st century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796956