use (and abuse) of scientific output Current challenges and opportunities in researchers' training in science communication

Marc Vanholsbeeck - Belgium

Mare Vanholsbeeck is the director of the di recto rate of scientific research of the Ministry of the Wallonia­Brussels Federation (aka French Community of Belgium). He is particularly involved in socia I sciences and humanities (SSH) research policies and Open Science, being the current acting chair of the European Research Area Standing Working Group on Open Science and lnnovation. Besides, he pursues a second career at Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), teaching and researching research methodologies in communication studies, oratory skills and (open) science communication. Core qualifications 2016: PhD in lnformation and Communication Studies, with a thesis about the evaluation of SSH publications in an Open Science context: La notion de« qualité » des publications dans l'évaluation de la recherche et des chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales: Le potentiel de l'Open Access pour dépasser le paradoxe des prescriptions en matière de qualité et l'ambivalence de leur perception par les chercheurs en sciences de la communication.

2003: DEA in lnformation and Communication Studies

2000: Master in lnformation and Communication Studies

1998: Master in Classica I Philology

Research and higher education policy making at Ministry of Wallonia-Brussels Federation Sin ce 2019: Director of the Di recto rate of Scientific Research of the Ministry of Wallonia-Brussels Federation Since 2019: Chair of the Standing Working Group of the European Research Area on Open Science and lnnovation Since 2014: Belgian first delegate to the Programme Committee of the 6th societal challenge
(Europe in a changing world) of Horizon 2020 (8th European Framework Programme in research and innovation)

Teaching and research at Université Libre de Bruxelles

September 2020: PhD lecturer in public speaking and debates

September 2018: Scientific advisor on the UNICA Rectors Seminar "Academic leadership for Open Science" Since 2016: Delegate to the COST ENRESSH (European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities) action

Since 2016: PhD lecturer in research methodologies and (open) science communication Teaching assistant since 2002 (research methodologies and science communication)
Current research topics: qualitative approach towards SSH research assessment, Open Science research policies, scholarly communication, science communication

Selected peer reviewed scholarly articles and book chapters

1. Tennant ,J.P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., Nobes, A., Rice, C., L6pez, B.R., Ross-Hellauer, T., Sattler, S., Thacker, P., Vanholsbeeck, M.
(2019). Ten Hot Topics a round Scholarly Publishing. Publications, 7, 34. doi:10.3390/publications7020034 2. Vanholsbeeck, M. (2017). La notion de Science Ouverte dans l'Espace européen de la recherche: Entre tendances à l'«exotérisation» età la «gestionnarisation» de la recherche scientifique. Revue française des sciences de l'information et de la communication, 11. 3. Vanholsbeeck, M. (2012). Entre qualité prescrite et qualité souhaitable. L'ambivalence des chercheurs en communication face à l'évaluation de leurs publications. Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, (77), 71-84. 4. Vanholsbeeck, M., Klein, A., & Proulx, S. P. (2012). Dépòt numérique des publications et renouveau des relations entre les acteurs de la recherche. Connexions. Communication numérique et lien social, Namur, Presses universitaires de Namur, 119-134. 5. Heinderyckx, F., Hardy, M., & Vanholsbeeck, M. (2012). Les revues scientifiques en information- communication. L'ère des mutations?. Questions de communication, (21), 157-170.

Session in-depth

In this session I will discuss some important and interconnected challenges that have a direct impact on the training of individuai scientists in science communication. Those challenges relate to 1) the objectives of the science communication action; 2) the character of the scientist; 3) the academic context in which the scientist communicates; 4) the impact of the extra-academic media context. Together with the audience I will evaluate the extent to which science communication trainers may turn each of these challenges into an opportunity to integrate science communication further into scholars' set of essential skills. On the one hand I will argue that this can only happen if trainers are fully aware of the complex nature of science communication and duly integrate this complexity into the conception of the training sessions, rather than privilege a single approach, most often based on a science deficit perspective. On the other hand, science communication has to be considered by ali stakeholders in a more holistic and inclusive perspective on the production, dissemination and evaluation of knowledge than it is currently the case.

I will base the presentation on my own experience both as research policy maker, communication scholar and science communication trainer. lnteraction with the audience will be stimulated through discussion of severa I concrete case studies. I will elaborate on each of the abovementioned types of challenges as follows:
Objectives of the science communication action
A first challenge in science communication lies in the need of making conscious and contextualized choices about the most adequate framing of a particular communication action, discriminating between severa I potential objectives such as: popularizing research results, strengthening the scientific literacy of the audience, engaging into a controversy, trying to get a societal or politica I impact, promoting a scientific institution or discipline and/or expressing a persona! opinion. A relateci issue consists in using the rhetorical devices and argumentative tools of persuasive communication, while keeping the demonstrative nature of science centrai in the message.
Character of the scientist
A scientist may have, in rhetorical terms, two different and potentially conflicting ethos to express, depending on whether she addresses academic peers or lay audiences. lndeed the scientific legitimacy that academics gain by building their (early) career is often considered as exclusive of any engagement in non-academic circles.

Academic context

The academic context in which scientists evolve is characterised by a contradiction between research policies - mostly decided at European leve! - that promote societal impact, and the lack of career incentives at national leve! far those researchers engaging effectively into them. Another issue is linked to the high rate of international mobility among researchers, particularly at an early stage of the career. This has implications far the organization of science communication training, as well as far science communication actions per se. Media context Finally, science communication trainers have to consider the rapid changes that affect the media landscape. Socia I media in particular play a new raie in the dissemination of lay opinions on science, recontextualizing major societal issues and scientific controversies.