Making theory valuable for daily practice – and vice versa

Outcomes of the 2025 PCST pre-conference workshop as a roadmap

This blog summarizes the discussion and outcomes of the workshop organized by Stephan van Duin and Anne Dijkstra on May 26, 2025 in Aberdeen.

Why did we initiate this workshop?

“We have noticed a tension between the theory and practice of science communication, and propose a transition to get rid of certain traditions.”

In literature, both the interaction and potential cross-fertilisation between the theory and practice of science communication became themes (e.g. Han & Stenhouse, 2014; Salmon & Roop, 2019). However, most studies concern specific cases that do not offer broadly applicable principles, or conclude that while intentions were good, the interaction between researchers and practitioners suffered (e.g. Dijkstra & Cormick, 2020). A few studies explored the potential resolve of the theory-practice-divide, but these, too, end with barriers that challenge cross-fertilisation in practice (Roedema, Willems, Van Duin, Kupper and Broerse (in review)) or mainly offer insights from practice to theory (Metcalfe, 2022).

In our co-creation workshop, we aimed to go beyond these frustrations and come up with concrete action points. Examples of possible action points are ways to make literature more valuable for practitioners or to deal with time and budgetary constraints. What would scholars and practitioners need to actually benefit from each other? And, how can we address this gap in teaching and facilitate a better connection for the next generations of scicom scholars and practitioners?

A workshop in three rounds

This workshop was part of PCST2025 in Aberdeen as a preconference session and in setting it up Van Duin and Dijkstra combined their different backgrounds as a practioner and an academic respectively. Their previous work and other sessions (notably at Wetenschnapps in Utrecht, January 2025, which is also depicted on the photos with this blog) informed and shaped this workshop.

We started the workshop by establishing a collective understanding of the problems that Van Duin distilled from literature. Thereupon, we created two groups to discuss these problems. In the second round of discussion, we explored potential solutions and action points. In the third round, we combined these solutions with insights from literature and previous outcomes, and discussed their feasibility and priority. What follows is a summary of the main insights as a roadmap. For a more detailed report of the workshop and the literature, visit this blog.

Roadmap to a better integration of theory and practice of science communication

The first observation we make, after considering the whole session, is that it is unrealistic, maybe even undesirable to think that we’re ever going to get rid of the theory-practice conundrum, since it may not be as much a problem as it is a part of our professional reality. In fact, by being forced to bridge that gap consciously, we can also gain a more explicit understanding of the perspective of ‘the other.’ When we make that effort, we will find that there are people who have valuable insights to offer. We work in such a broad field and with such wide range of expertise, that it’s healthy to expose ourselves to various insights, networks and approaches, which may inspire and inform us. And if that is the outcome of a gap we all bridge in full consciousness, we fully support that.

Having said that, we can always make that gap easier to cross or to navigate. According to the outcomes of the workshop, we can achieve that through three different approaches:

1. We increase the visibility of the gap by making science communication a part of all scientific education.
2. We create a space to fill the gap, for example in (new places in) literature, where theory and practice can exchange ideas.
3. We help people navigate the gap by appointing brokers or translators that act like knowledgeable and understanding spirit guides.

Let’s look at these three ideas in more detail.

We increase the visibility of the gap by making science communication a part of all scientific education

Many participants were enthused by the idea of making science communication principles part of the education of scientists. The arguments for this revolve around two benefits. First, it makes scientists aware of their role in society, thus communication becomes a part of their identity as a scientist. Second, by including the principles at an early stage they become a natural part of the scientific process, which helps to solidify future communication efforts. The timing of education is up for debate; the proposals ranged from as early as high school to the more commonplace grad school.

To make it a feasible idea some challenges should be resolved or worked on.. First , who would be funding this? A course for all scientific disciplines is bound to be one of the bigger courses taught at any university. Even if universities work together and offer training online, it will still take considerable resources.

A second consideration is that experience with workshops in science communication shows that the earlier in their scientific career the participants are, the more difficult it is to get them to internalize and grasp the principles. This is mainly due to the fact that until sometime during their PhD, they haven’t (for the most part) picked a topic they will really delve into. This makes the communication of science at an earlier stage an abstract exercise.

A final question is what we would do with science communicators who don’t come through universities. How do we nurture that part of the scicom community?

We create a space to fill the gap, for example in new places in literature, where theory and practice can exchange ideas

Perhaps it’s more productive to think of the interaction between theory and practice not as ‘a gap’ or ‘a problem’ to be bridged or solved, but as ‘a space’ that all can enter. This means that a place is needed where both can interact voluntarily and on an equal footing to exchange ideas and insights.

One suggestion that was raised a few times is a version of (grey) literature that would be the place where practitioners (also) share their insights and experiences. Even regular journals could be more conducive to practitioners’ publishing, but that would also mean doing something about publication fees, open access, multimedia entries, etc. This literature space could be shaped as a journal, a trade journal or even a dedicated website or blog. Perhaps we would need a new type of paper, to highlight the different character of the insights offered, and to deal with differences in rigour, data collection and time investment.

It would be great if we could connect that to increased visibility of practice at conferences (but that would have its own challenges with financing, since practitioners tend to not get paid to attend nor receive funding for the conference fee). Perhaps t a PCST Proceedings publication would be a solution (and proceedings used to be made available in the past). Another suggestion was to organise more frequent local ‘pub meetings’ between the various actors in scicom, or create networks to serve that purpose. However, all these suggestions require clear and well-thought out goals and approaches, as well as long-term funding.

We help people navigate the gap by appointing brokers or translators that act like knowledgeable and understanding spirit guides

The third idea revolves around ‘brokers’ or ‘translators’ that can help navigate the gap. These professionals act as glue between the different actors in the scicom landscape, and know how to increase and tighten the contact between them. Brokers can take different shapes. For example, they could play a role in train-the-trainer- constructions. In them, they can receive training which they distribute to a much larger group, acting like a multiplier. They can also act as a matchmaker, like some of the national centres for science communication. They could even act as moderators or referees in the landscape, monitoring various initiatives and acting upon them if the actors involved are mismatched or missing certain expertise.

However you look at them exactly, they will be a catalyst for the field, making it possible for everyone involved to navigate the gap (or space) more effectively. That has value, and it might be a more cost-effective approach than creating a space without them – though the question remains of who would be paying for them while they remain independent.

It can be said that these roles exist already. National associations of science communications and certain entrepreneurial researchers and practitioners act like such unappointed catalysts already. They draw in a lot of work or attention, and because of their extensive networks they can redistribute some of this in a way that increases the quantity and quality of scicom. As said, the issue is that they are generally not paid for this, and these de facto brokers have their blind spots, so success depends on their coincidental presence. Perhaps a way could be found to combine their grassroots brokering with more official roles.

A big benefit of picking someone specifically for this role is that this person can be selected based on talent in considering and respecting different cultural backgrounds, languages and other relevant aspects. They may also lobby for opportunities for researchers to gain more practical experience, and vice versa.

Bonus: increase the amount of theory-practice collaborations

A final proposed solution that can contribute to the preceding three more broadly – and one that is also mentioned in literature – is more long-term collaborations between practitioners and researchers. This can lead to increased trust in both directions, and at the same time, it solves some of the more practical challenges, such as the differences in time-scale and scope between practice and research.

By making these collaborations more frequent and continuous, it prevents scicom becoming an ‘afterthought’ or late add-on to any project, and it solves finding funding for every little project separately. One suggestion to make these endeavours valuable is to search for a way to make these collaborations mutually beneficial in other ways than monetary, though how exactly was beyond the scope of this workshop.

Fair and long-term funding will be an important part of any solution

Whatever perspective we take, all ideas offered in this blog rely on solid and long-term funding, and/or recognition and rewards for all those involved. Literature also highlights the potential for long-term collaborations, but the funding in science communication is notoriously difficult for anyone who is not a researcher (and it’s not like it’s easy for them either). The funding criteria tend to be biased towards new projects and collaborations, making it difficult to build and maintain long-term relationships, and they also tend to overlook the costs for the practitioners involved in such projects. Moreover, practitioners often can’t even apply for such funding, which means that the power balance in projects is inherently skewed. Universities and national centres for science communication can play a role in resolving this.

The monetary issue goes beyond individual projects. As of now, it has become harder (read: more expensive) for practitioners to enter the communal spaces than it is for researchers, so they don’t publish as much and they don’t attend conferences as much. It’s a difficult matter to solve. Freelancers are not connected to a single organization but are adding value to the whole ecosystem of scicom, so who feels responsible to help them to enter the spaces? Similarly, practitioners at institutions are not expected to attend their own conferences which means there is a world to win. In other words, these suggested ideas might work but success relies on changes in the academic system that are beyond science communication itself.

Let’s keep the conversation going, so join in!

To conclude, it was a very interesting and productive session, and we want to thank all the participants for their input and open minds, and the organisers from PCST for funding. We knew we weren’t going to solve this issue in one afternoon, but we are impressed by the focus and clarity of the ideas. We hope and expect that this road map will inform and inspire future dialogues and help make science communication an even more tight-knit and beautiful community as it has been so far.

All photos by Ward Mevis. These photos are from the WetenschnappsXXL session that informed the session at PCST in Aberdeen (which we don’t have photos from, unfortunately).