Episode 94 – Interview with science communication Professor Nancy Longnecker

This week it is a huge honour for us to speak with our long-time scicomm colleague Nancy Longnecker who is Emerita Professor of Science Communication at the University of Otago. She has collaborated in the production of communication resources and assessment of their effectiveness in work that is often multidisciplinary and cross-cultural. In a career spanning four decades, Nancy has produced both physical and virtual resources, including exhibitions, displays, podcasts, websites, and teaching resources. She has written over 100 books, book chapters and articles. Nancy has taught science communication and contributed to workshops in Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Singapore, Japan, the UK, and Denmark and has supervised over 50 science communication research students from 17 countries.

Nancy is thrilled with her recent exhibition – Hou Rongo: Moriori | Music | Manawa. Hou Rongo offered an immersive look at the home and culture of New Zealand’s indigenous Moriori people, who are often neglected or misunderstood. This exhibition blended tradition with innovative technology to evoke the feeling of being on Rēkohu (Chatham Island) amid the realms of the etchu (deities). The exhibition used sacred cultural objects, large video projections and an atmospheric soundscape to transport visitors to this special place. Nancy says, ‘I am proud to have been a part of a talented multidisciplinary team of academics and cultural advisors. With the Hou Rongo exhibition and its legacy components, we are honouring Moriori culture and contributing to its revitalisation.’

You can follow Nancy and learn more about her work here:

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-longnecker-7275ab66/
• https://www.otago.ac.nz/science-communication/staff/longnecker
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Longnecker

Transcript

Jen (00:00:22)
Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of Let’s Talk SciComm.
As always, I’m extremely excited to be here. I love nothing more than talking about science communication with my excellent friend and colleague, Michael.
So hello, Michael.

Michael (00:00:38)
Hey, Jen. I am equally as extremely excited as you are for today’s episode.

Jen (00:00:44)
Well, I think we could have a competition, and I don’t think you could be more excited than I am about today’s guest, Emeritus Professor Nancy Longnecker. I would say, without parallel, without question, has been the most important person in my career.
So I met Nancy very early. When I first started learning, I didn’t even really know what science communication was. I knew I cared about it, but I didn’t know how I might contribute to it. And since then, Nancy really has been a constant source of encouragement, support. I don’t know how many referee letters she’s written for me over the years.
A source of inspiration and really a source of really very important friendship. So Nancy is one of the most accomplished, skilled, experienced, and wise science communication academics I believe globally. And I just can’t think of anyone that I would rather be speaking with today.

So Nancy, she began her career in the agricultural sciences. So Nancy has a master’s degree in soil sciences and a PhD in agronomy and crop science, both from the University of Cornell. But then she moved all the way to the University of Western Australia. And if you look at her CV, that’s where her kind of visible science communication career began.
And I’m really looking forward to asking Nancy about her incredible career at UWA, the University of Western Australia. And she left there after 26 years as an Associate Professor and was appointed as a full Professor, a full Professor of science communication at the University of Otago in New Zealand, where she’s just finished an incredibly impressive and productive decade of work.
And Nancy’s been a member of the Australian Science Communicators for nearly 30 years. And I mean, she’s just got so much experience in different areas of science communication as both a practitioner and an academic. And I would say is one of the world’s absolutely most respected science communication educatorsand academics.
So Nancy, it is such an honor to have you on the podcast today. Thank you so much for joining us.

Nancy (00:02:50)
Jen, I don’t even know how to respond to that amazing and lovely and wonderful introduction, but thank you so much for your kind words.
They mean a lot to me, coming from someone as accomplished as you are. Thank you. It’s great to be here.

Jen (00:03:05)
Well, I’ve been following in the footsteps of a giant for many many years, Nancy. I owe a huge amount to you.
So Nancy, I would like to begin by going back. I’d like to go back to 1986.

Nancy (00:03:18)
Ooh, yes.

Jen (00:03:20)
You’ve just finished your PhD at Cornell University. What happened in those I’m guessing, fairly formative years? Or I don’t know, what happened between 1986 and 1988 where you find yourself all the way over in Western Australia? You know, Australia is far enough away as it is. Perth is pretty isolated from the rest of the world.
And you found yourself founding what I’m pretty sure was Australia’s first tertiary program in science communication. I tried to find out the exact dates, both at UWA and at the Australian National University.
But anyway, you were an absolute trailblazer…

Nancy (00:03:56)
Thank you.

Jen (00:03:57)
So how did you discover your passion for science communication?

Nancy (00:03:56)
My first landing in Australia was actually in Adelaide. So I went to Adelaide to do a postdoc before moving to Perth to do a research fellowship. I went to Australia because as you’ll know, most people will know, it’s the oldest continent.
And so I’m interested in plant nutrition. And it was mecca to me because I could do field experiments on micronutrients whereas in the US, I had to clean up labs to such a degree to even be able to do a lab experiment in micronutrients.
So it was wonderful. I got to, you know, drive around on tractors and do amazing work. And I loved my research career.
You know, it’s the treadmill of finding grant money and everything else. And over a few years, I realized that all of the grants that I was getting were actually to work with people instead of plants, and to share the excitement of what we were doing at CLIMA because we were a really productive and fantastic in my biased opinion, CRC. So we did think… In fact, from our education program, I believe we created the very first website for a CRC.

Jen (00:05:09)
Wow.

Nancy (00:05:10)
Which well, about 1996, you know. And I remember going to my boss, the director of the CRC, who was a fantastic, one of the best bosses anyone could hope for.
And I said, “I think we should have a website. I think we need a website.” And he said, “Well, why would we want a website?” And I said, “I don’t really know, but it just seems like a good idea.”
And so we, you know, I coded one in HTML. I was just like, “Oh my God.” I wouldn’t even begin to know how to do that now, but it was way before we had software to create them.
And looking back on it, you know, it was such a clunker where you scroll down, scroll down, scroll down. Anyway, we’ve come a long way. And in those years, we did some amazingly fun. We had such a good team of people, postgrads, early career researchers who were really interested in science engagement.
And we were working on genetic modification. In fact, the very first lentil to ever be genetically modified was done by the group.

Jen (00:06:15)
Wow.

Nancy (00:06:16)
If I remember correctly, they were a high school student in the lab who was working with one of our researchers. And you just look back on that, and it was such an exciting time. So we had a great group of people.
We did the Bean Files. We did a web-based teaching resource for primary school students with… Populated by, Billy Bean was our narrator and Chelsea Chickpea, and the lentils and leotards. And we just had so much fun.
The flip side of that, not surprisingly, there were some sort of older, not even necessarily older, but more traditional researchers who thought because we were having so much fun, what we were doing was frivolous.
Because some scientists see having fun as not an indicator that you’re serious about your science. And we were very serious about our science. And we wanted to share the excitement that we had with other people.
But it is something to be aware of. I did have, you know, I mean, I had comments much later from one of the people who was a bit negative, said, “Oh, you know, I owe you an apology.” You know, this was like way after. “I owe you a bit of an apology because I just didn’t think that what you were doing with kids and you know, other people outside of the ivory towers was important.”

Jen (00:07:36)
That’s good for him to apologize. I mean, presumably that came from a place of him realizing later that actually what you were doing was very important.

Nancy (00:07:44)
Reflection, yeah.
He self-reflected when he retired, which is a good thing. Yeah.

Michael (00:07:49)
It’s really fascinating to hear that historical perspective. I’d love to know more about what was the field of science communication like back then?
You know, I guess it was very early days and you were slowly kind of building up a bit of a profile in this area over at UWA.
Also, I have to say that the year that you left UWA, I joined UWA as a PhD student. So we might’ve just missed each other, Nancy.

Nancy (00:08:17)
Oh, we just missed, too bad. Well…

Michael (00:08:19)
And I miss the campus life there and the peacocks.
I don’t know if there were peacocks there when you joined.

Nancy (00:08:27)
Oh. Absolutely. And they’re still there.
I went over and checked when I went back for the ASC conference.

Michael (00:08:33)
Ah, great.

Jen (00:08:33)
Yeah. I went and looked for them too ’cause I’d heard about them.
We went looking for the peacocks and found them.

Michael (00:08:40)
So I guess peacocks, yeah. I mean, they’ve probably seen a lot on their time on campus and they probably didn’t realize you know, the changes that were occurring in the background but yeah, changes in I guess, the recognition of science communication as a field.
Because I know Jen speaks about how difficult it was to really establish a science communication teaching program at the University of Melbourne. You know, and this is much later.

Jen (00:09:07)
Decades and decades later.

Nancy (00:09:09)
It was frontier times. You know, it was really exciting, a little bit dangerous, quite exciting. I remember some very interesting staff… academic council and staff meetings, you know, trying to get across a new program in a fairly traditional research intensive university.
I remember having to fax people. You know, use a fax. Who uses a fax machine? Do people even know what a fax machine [is]?
We had a wonderful grant where there were four different academics from different universities. And we were all at this frontier of science communication. And we were working on what we called at the time, new media.
And I had the job of coordinating a podcasting, developing a podcasting for science students, assignments and things to get students, science students able to communicate better.
We had someone who was working on blogging, someone who was working on making pocket filmmaking. And then someone who was coordinating, Will Rifkin, lovely Will, coordinated the whole program. And his brief was publishing on the web.
So it was very early days. Social media was just coming in. It certainly wasn’t controlling the universe at the time, you know?
So there was a lot of optimism about how that was going to democratize and provide information at your fingertips, which there’s some truth to that.

Michael (00:10:45)
So was part of the arguments about you know, establishing this course that look at these changes that are just beginning to occur now. And maybe you were predicting that the job of a scientist was going to change rapidly.
I guess the, you know, it’s a lot easier now to argue for the value of science communication because researchers have an online public profile and there’s lots more examples of the benefits of engaging in science communication for researchers.
But I guess without that track record, it must have been, maybe a slightly different argument about the fundamental value of just practicing different types of communication, but maybe also a little bit of, there are some changes that are beginning to occur now. And this would really position scientists well to advance in that, in this new environment?

Nancy (00:11:33)
Well, it’s interesting because it’s always been hugely frustrating aspect of my career, is that as communicators, how can we do a better job of communicating to the academic hierarchy, the value of what we do and how it is core business and how important it is for scientists to communicate?
It’s not new, which is interesting. I mean, all the media is new. But if you look back into the 1800s when professors used to go around on road trips in horse and buggy, you know, it’s not new that scientists would communicate with the public.
But then I’d say post World War II, there was a real kind of closing of the ranks. And I’m not a historian, so I might be out of, this might not be totally accurate, but it’s my perception that it became more important to communicate to your colleagues than to communicate to the public.
And so we’re kind of clawing back to maybe to an earlier time, just using different technologies of the importance of science communication.
And how do we get that message out there to the academies to support this as real core business for research organizations, for universities?

Jen (00:12:51)
And Nancy, I mean I, yeah, I completely agree with all of that. That you know, there was this stage where science, and I’m also not a historian, but you know, this period of science becoming more and more elitist and more and more hierarchical and really putting scientists in a position where we’re actively trained to communicate in ways that the rest of the world can’t possibly understand.
And I guess, you know, I’m really interested in your personal motivation to not only become highly skilled at communicating with different audiences, to teach other people how to do that. Because I think, you know, obviously I’ve been doing this for far less time than you, but I reckon my motivations have shifted.
For me in the early days, I felt like a bit of a cheerleader. You know, I love science, I want everyone else to love science, rah, rah, rah. Whereas now for me, it’s much more about recognizing the privilege we have of holding information that in fact, everybody should have a right to be able to understand and get access to.
And for me, it’s much more now about trying to think about equity and how we be as inclusive as possible as scientists. I don’t know, do you have a sense of your own sort of personal motivations?
I mean, obviously it was fun and I love the way you talked about the early days of you know, what was her name? Which chickpea? Charlie Chickpea?

Nancy (00:14:01)
Chelsea Chickpea. She was like one of my favorite. Yeah, yeah.

Jen (00:14:03)
Chelsea chickpea. I mean, so like clearly that was fun. And you found these opportunities to do fun, interesting things with your colleagues.
But you know, you could have stayed in agricultural science and you didn’t. So what really drove you to become both a practitioner and an academic of science communication?

Nancy (00:14:22)
Part of it was pragmatism because if anyone who’s on a full-time research only contract knows that once you’ve been in it for a while, you get to be more expensive and finding the money to support your own salary becomes harder and harder. So spreading myself, you know, not having all of my eggs in one basket, that’s a purely pragmatic approach.
But then once I got into that other basket, I thought, Ooh, this is a really cool basket. I’ve been really enjoying it.
So it wasn’t that I didn’t enjoy the research and the plant science because I loved that too. But it was, I suppose what motivated me, I definitely started out as a science cheerleader. I’m a lot more cautious now than I was when I was a full-fledged science cheerleader because I think the patriarchy has really weighed down on me over the years.
So there’s some of that, the hierarchy of science as the way to know things, I find patronizing and increasingly offensive. And so it’s dampened and I need to regain my enthusiasm for science because it is a wonderful way to make observations and learn about how the world, the workings of the world and to understand the world, but it’s not the only way to know things.
And so that’s a challenge in my head that I haven’t teased apart, managed to tease apart yet, about how to maintain my enthusiasm for science and science communication without being a colonizer, and without patronizing people.
And so I guess that gets back to this whole argument in science communication about the deficit model, about we have the knowledge and we will gift it, you know, to you because… And how offensive that is and how we have moved beyond that as a discipline in science communication.
But people who come into the discipline generally start there because they’re coming from a position of learning about science, being amazed and fascinated and wanting to share that enthusiasm with the world. So it’s a bit of a missionary zeal.

Michael (00:16:39)
Yeah, it’s really interesting, I guess, the evolution of the field. But also it sounds like you had an evolution in your thinking and perspectives on the whole topic. You know, maybe starting off as a cheerleader, but then developing kind of a more nuanced understanding of the different reasons why we might want to engage with publics and the different ways in which we can do that as well.
Because I know one of the areas that you’ve had a huge impact in is in creating exhibitions and displays. Can you tell us a bit more about that form?

Nancy (00:17:13)
We don’t have enough time to talk about my enthusiasm for exhibitions.

Michael (00:17:19)
Yeah, why are they so powerful at sharing science communication?

Nancy (00:17:25)
That’s a really good question, why are they? Because there’s something about being present with information that’s not filtered through a screen or through headphones or whatever, that you’re there with objects, you’re there with interactives that you’re actually doing.
You know, so it’s engagement in a holistic sense. I’m just about to launch next week, I’m so excited about this exhibition. It’s a multi-sensory exhibition and it’s going to include augmented reality, video projections, soundscape of Rēkohu in Chatham Islands. And it’s a revitalization of culture of Moriori people, which is one of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand.
So I’m just, that’s all in my head because we’re finalizing our panels and things. I have exhibitions, one exhibition… I’ll use this exhibition as an example of how an exhibition can change people’s behavior, which is, as we know in science communication, as I was like, Oh my God, that’s so hard.
We talk about changing attitudes and changing intentions to [behavior]. But this particular exhibition, we know changed behavior. And it was an exhibition called “Well-Balanced”. And it was designed for improving your strength and balance across the lifespan.
And we did a follow-up. We did some visitor studies on that and asked people what they remembered about it. And every single person that we talked to had done something and had done something different, which was amazing.
One person said, “Oh, I’ve gone to some yoga classes.” And one said, “I bought a hula hoop.” There was a balance and some things were, “I bought a hula hoop because my daughters were so…” You know, “blah, blah, blah”. And another one, “Oh, I’ve been doing some grip strength exercises.”
That each person had interacted with something at that exhibit, exhibition that actually changed their behavior. There’s that, there’s the authenticity. There’s the interaction and it can, they can change people’s lives.

Jen (00:19:33)
That’s like, that’s the Holy Grail really, isn’t it? Like, it doesn’t get better than that.
Nancy, the other thing I’d really love to briefly speak about before we run out of time is… You’ve published a lot of papers in your career. I don’t know how many, but a lot of papers. You’re a highly successful researcher.
But in 2022, you published one in the Journal of Science Communication that I thought was both very important and very special. I can’t remember if I contacted you at the time, but I read it word for word. And I can’t say I do that for many papers these days.
But basically you, you know, you provided a commentary on your 20 years of experience teaching science communication in Australia, in Singapore, and New Zealand.
I’m sorry we don’t have time to go into as much detail as I’d like. But you know, for someone who hasn’t read it, is there a clear sort of takeaway for you on maybe the opportunities you’ve seen or the challenges of you know, the future of science communication education as someone who’s been in that game for a long time?

Nancy (00:20:36)
Yeah. You’re right, Jen. We don’t really have the time to delve into that question the way both of us, all three of us would love to.
The thing is, I think the challenge for us is that we are in fiscally constrained times. And we are seen as good to have, not must have.
And that is such a disappointment because… And somehow we need to, science communicators need to learn how to communicate better with the people who are making decisions about our future, about why what we do is so important.
And it’s not a nice to have, it is a must have that we must communicate to policymakers, to politicians, to the people who actually give money to support the universities. To tell them about all the important things that are happening in the universities and why they’re valuable and why it is valuable for anyone who wants to go to university to be able to have that opportunity.
Ooh, I can feel my blood pressure going up. So I will just calm down and say… You know, it’s just, those are such important messages.
Oh, I’ll tell you one last thing. One of the things that I was told recently by [a] decision maker at Otago was, “Oh well, you know, we’re all science communicators.” And he was indicating that we didn’t need the Department of Science Communication because everyone was doing it anyway.
And I said, “No, no, we’re all… Well, we in that context, we’re all scientists to communicate. And it’s not the same thing as understanding about the theories of science communication and being able to teach it.”
I mean… And I think you might remember in that paper in 2022, I said, saying something like, “Thinking that anyone can teach science communication because we all communicate is like saying that anyone who’s had children can teach reproductive biology.” You know, it does not work that way, you know?

Jen (00:22:42)
Oh, that’s a great analogy.

Nancy (00:22:45)
It’s just, we have special insights and special skills and we’re the appropriate people to help early career and students to be able to do things better.

Jen (00:22:57)
Oh, Nancy, I couldn’t agree with you more. And yeah, I mean, thank goodness for you. Thank goodness for your colleagues. Thank goodness that, that you and other…
Well, I think you’re the trailblazer, but the people who were with you trailblazing. You know, thank goodness for you. Because otherwise Michael and I wouldn’t have the opportunity I don’t think, to do what we do that we care about so much.

Nancy (00:23:20)
Well, I’m so glad to have that legacy.
That makes it all worthwhile.

Michael (00:23:24)
It’s so great to hear from you, Nancy.
And I feel like we could continue talking for an indefinite amount of time, but we are running towards the end of our podcast.
But before we let you go, we’d like to switch gears now a little bit and move to our quick questions segment. Are you ready?

Nancy (00:23:44)
Sure.

Michael (00:23:44)
Are you ready?

Nancy (00:23:45)
I’m ready.

Jen (00:23:48)
She’s always ready, Michael. She’s always ready.

Michael (00:24:02)
The first question I’d like to ask is if you could pick an alternative career to what you’re doing, what would it be?

Nancy (00:24:09)
Well, it would have been landscape architecture because I do love plants and I do, and I am a bit of a city person, so how I ended up in agronomy is another long story. Landscape architecture.

Jen (00:24:21)
Oh, I think that there’s still time, Nancy. You can have a whole ‘nother career ahead of you.
Nancy, if you could choose to have one superpower, what superpower would you choose to have?

Nancy (00:24:32)
Well, I think I do have a superpower.
I think my superpower is I’m an invisigirl from you know, the movie.
And I think I’m one of those behind-the-scenes people who helps to facilitate other people to reach their potential.
So I think that’s my superpower.

Michael (00:24:53)
What a great superpower to have.
It’s such a great way to have impact, you know, by enabling others.
But often it can be challenging maybe to understand truly what that impact really was.
But you know, I guess you kind of get some sense of it, but maybe not the full picture.

Nancy (00:25:13)
Yeah.

Michael (00:25:14)
Okay, if you could go back Nancy, in time, and give yourself a message at the age of 21, what would you say to yourself?

Nancy (00:25:13)
Oh, man. That is such a good question because I think back on my life and I think about, you know… I don’t know, everyone probably does this. You focus on all the stupid things you’ve said or all the mistakes that you’ve made.
And I would, so I guess my advice would be take it easy on yourself. You know, be a little bit easier on yourself that we, there’s a great quote. I can’t do it verbatim. But from Michael Jordan, who said something along the lines of you know, I missed X million free throws or whatever. And I never would have been the player that I was if I hadn’t kept practicing and making and missing. You know, I missed a lot.
And I think, you know, that’s how we learn. That’s how we get better is making mistakes and missing. So go easy on yourself.

Jen (00:26:11)
A beautiful message for all of us at all ages, I think. Give ourselves a little bit more grace.
Which kind of leads nicely I think to the next question, Nancy. And that is, what do you think makes a good leader?

Nancy (00:26:26)
Ooh, I’ve thought a lot about this.

Jen (00:26:29)
I bet you have.

Nancy (00:26:30)
And empathy is one of the key things. A good leader will create opportunities for other people and support all of their team, however big that is, even if it’s just themselves. Will create opportunities for others to flourish. Yeah, I think that’s the main thing.
The things that I look for… This is advice for anyone who’s starting out in jobs and things like that. Things to look for in people to work with are that you trust them. How important is that? That you respect them. And then the bonus is if you like them, then you’ll probably have a lot more of an enjoyable employment.
But those three things, trust and respect are indispensable. Liking someone is a bonus.

Michael (00:27:34)
Great advice.
Okay Nancy, the last question that we would like to ask is, out of your many years thinking about science communication, can you pick out one top tip for students, for you know, our listeners who are interested in communicating more effectively about science? What will be your top tip to communicate effectively?

Nancy (00:28:00)
Okay, yeah, that is actually a relatively easy one.
My top tip is who are you communicating to or with? That is the first thing you need to think about.
And instead of thinking what I want to communicate, think what will they want to hear?
What will they…? What will resonate with your audience? And how can you then make this a more effective communication activity?

Jen (00:28:28)
Beautiful final advice, Nancy.
And going back one question, I think you are absolutely the epitome of good leadership. I’ve learned so much from you over so many years.
And without question, I trust and respect and massively like you.
I’m so pleased that finally, we could chat with you on the podcast. And I’m going to already think about when we can invite you back to talk a lot more about so many things that you have experience in.
But really from the bottom of my heart, just thank you for joining us.
Thank you for sharing so candidly parts of your career. I’m sorry we couldn’t talk about more of it, but it’s just such a pleasure to speak with you today.

Nancy (00:29:08)
Thank you so much for the opportunity, I really appreciate being asked.

Michael (00:29:11)
Thanks so much, Nancy. It’s been a pleasure.

Jen (00:29:34)
Thank you so much for listening to another episode of Let’s Talk SciComm from the University of Melbourne Science Communication Teaching Team. I’m Associate Professor Jen Martin and my brilliant cohost is Dr Michael Wheeler.

Michael (00:29:48)
And if you’ve enjoyed listening to this episode, we’d love you to share it with your friends and family. We’d love you to share your favourite episode online. And you can find us at LetsTalkSciComm on X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Jen (00:30:03)
And this season, we are asking for your help to spread the word so that more people find out about our podcast.
So if you enjoy listening, we would love you to tell a friend, but we’d also love you to think about taking a couple of minutes to write us a review.
Whatever platform you listen on, there will be a place for you to leave a review. And we’re going to keep track and award our favourite reviewees some prizes.
We’re thinking about some merch. And we’d also love to reward our favourite review with a free science communication workshop that we will run for you in person or online, depending on whereabouts you are.

Michael (00:30:38)
Ooh, prizes. And if… They sound great. And if you’d like to get in touch to suggest a guest or a future topic, we’d love to hear from you. Please email us at letstalkscicomm@gmail.com. And as always, a huge thank you to our production team Stephanie Wong and Steven Tang.