PCST2025_P.Nr. 165_Academic Saviorism - The pitfalls of-well intentioned science communication

Abstract: In recent years, science communication has gained prominence as a key tool for bridging the gap between academia and the public. However, it has become evident that the typical audience for science communication is predominantly male, white, and academically educated (Judd et al., 2021; Scheufele, 2018). This is problematic because scientific knowledge should be accessible to everyone, as recognized by the UN General Assembly (1948). Consequently, communicators are increasingly tasked with reaching the so-called “unreached” (Bevan et al., 2020). While these efforts to democratize knowledge and promote inclusivity are commendable, they are not without their pitfalls. Drawing on Bourdieu's concept of academic habitus (2011) in line with Archer (2015) and Dawson (2018), this presentation argues that the cultural and social capital inherent in academic institutions often shapes science communication. As a result, well-intentioned efforts to engage marginalized groups can sometimes come across as patronizing or uninvited. The desire to be inclusive, while noble, can inadvertently lead to practices that prioritize affirming the status of the institution rather than genuinely engaging with diverse audiences on their own terms. This theoretical presentation introduces the concept of ‘academic saviorism,’ inspired by the ‘white savior complex’ (Cole, 2012). Academic saviorism highlights the paternalistic and classist tendencies in science communication, where efforts to ‘engage with everyone’ may inadvertently reinforce power imbalances and perpetuate exclusionary practices. It will conclude with best practice recommendations based on reviewed case studies, proposing strategies for truly inclusive science communication. The aim is to encourage reflection on current practices and demonstrate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion. Literature: Archer,L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong,B (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227 Bevan, B., Calabrese Barton, A., and Garibay, C. (2020). Broadening Perspectives on Broadening Participation: Professional Learning Tools for More Expansive and Equitable Science Communication. Front. Commun. 5 (52), 1–10. https://10.3389/fcomm.2020.00052 Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital. In M. Granovetter (Ed.), The sociology of economic life (3rd ed.). Routledge. 78-92. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494338 Cole, Teju (21.03.2012). The White-Savior Industrial Complex. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/ Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non)participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517750072 Judd, K., & McKinnon, M. (2021). A Systematic Map of Inclusion, Equity and Diversity in Science Communication Research: Do We Practice what We Preach? Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365 Scheufele, D. A. (2018). Beyond the Choir? The Need to Understand Multiple Publics for Science. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1521543 UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Resolution 217 (III) A. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights