Are Students Prepared to Communicate? A Case Study of an Australian Degree Course in Biotechnology

Abstract

Public concerns about biotechnology have resulted in greater attention being paid to the mechanisms by which biotechnology is communicated with non-scientists, including the provision of science communication training. As undergraduate and postgraduate courses form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. Using an Australian biotechnology degree course as a case study, this paper examines science communication training within this course and the views of past and present students towards this training. Interviews were undertaken with 22 stakeholders in the case, including undergraduate lecturers (who also supervise postgraduate research students), doctoral candidates and biotechnologists recently graduated from the course. Few of the students felt the course provided them with any form of science communication training, let alone training in how to engage non-scientists. Many were unaware of the training available to them and few of the lecturers were able to identify where communication skills are taught within the course. A previous study of this case has also shown that biotechnology undergraduates taking this course do not value communication with non-scientists. Clearly, the current state of science communication training for these students needs to be improved if they are to enter the biotechnology workforce as able civic scientists. The findings of this study may be useful for other university biotechnology courses which have yet to integrate science communication training into their curriculum.

Scientists' views about communication training

“…Similarly, a review of science funding policies from around the world found that many funders wanted researchers to disseminate the results of their work beyond academia, but very few mentioned a need for investigators to meaningfully engage with members of the public (Palmer & Schibeci, 2014). One study found that biotechnology students did not feel prepared to communicate with the public about their work and were unfamiliar with the idea of dialogue‐based science communication (Edmondston, Dawson, & Schibeci, ). The same researchers also found that instructors thought that getting better and more dialogue‐focused communication training into the curriculum would be difficult (Edmondston & Dawson, 2013).…”

Teaching oral communication in undergraduate science: Are we doing enough and doing it right?

“…There is value in developing literacy skills early in an undergraduate curriculum to provide a good foundation for the students (Freeman & Lynd-Balta, 2010). Furthermore, as a significant portion of undergraduate students will not undertake studies at a postgraduate level, inclusion of science communication training in undergraduate courses becomes even more significant (Edmondston, Dawson & Schibeci, 2010a). It is also proposed that formal science communication training should be introduced in early stages of career development as this form of training will place the students in a better stage as they begin their careers as willing and able scientists after they graduate (Edmondston, Dawson & Schibeci, 2010b).…”

Comparison of Employers’ and Students’ Perceptions Regarding Communication Skills

“…Therefore, it is a process to be thoughtfully prepared and a positive feedback from our interviewees is encouraging. However, several research warn that in spite of being aware of the issue importance, graduate students severely lack the skills of speech clarity (Haworth and Garrill, 2003;Longnecker, 2009;Edmondston et al, 2010). Another related concept is conciseness so we asked the interviewees to rate the importance of delivering concise speech.…”