Comments on: SciComm Cycle of the March for Science

By: Publication: Better Leadership through Diversity – The Other Sociologist

Publication: Better Leadership through Diversity – The Other Sociologist — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:02:11 +0000

[…] ineffective communications strategy that exacerbated poor diversity practices. The organizers were forced to issue a dozen apologies for their problematic social media posts and […]

LikeLike

By: Publication: Making the Most of Diversity Lessons – The Other Sociologist

Publication: Making the Most of Diversity Lessons – The Other Sociologist — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 04:55:21 +0000

[…] (particularly women from minority backgrounds). Meanwhile, the march has continued to suffer one communication and planning crisis after another, including an ill-informed discussion of the gender pay gap, racist ‘dog whistling’, […]

LikeLike

By: Social Science Insights

Social Science Insights — Sat, 16 Mar 2019 18:39:09 +0000

[…] Cycle of the March for Science, The Other Sociologist, 22 April […]

LikeLike

By: Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

Dr Zuleyka Zevallos — Sat, 06 May 2017 13:53:37 +0000

In reply to saša marcan.

Hi saša. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You’re right that the March for Science was attempting to do two contradictory things at once: appeal to Trump voices and supporters, alongside seeming to be progressive. It did not bear out well for the march in the end, I’m afraid. The marches were well-attended, but time has shown that they did not near the same number of attendees as other recent protests. This is a shame. A more inclusive approach with a clear vision for change would have had stronger, long-term impact.

LikeLike

By: saša marcan

saša marcan — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:09:50 +0000

MfS banks in on the romantic idea of science as some apolitical and sanctimonious pursuit of objective truth, when it is in fact first and foremost a profession; a job and a career as any other essentially. The looming funding cuts in science threaten to destabilize the status quo in the WASP-dominated scientific job market, so MfS emerges as an attempt to at least reinforce that status quo.

Since its inception it’s been a reactionary initiative veiled in progressive rhetoric in order to garner wide public support; a rhetoric of diversity and inclusion primarily intended to get *non-scientists* jumping on the bandwagon. This works well for PR purposes obviously, but at the same time it misleads the diverse and excluded into thinking MfS is a forum for airing their concerns and grievances with the status quo.

Yet the status quo can’t simultaneously be both reinforced and changed, so friction emerges between progressive (i.e. marginsci) and reactionary (i.e. anti-Trump) voices within the MfS organization.

In that sense I feel the whole thing may have well been a ‘scicomm fail’ from the outset.

LikeLike