Effective science communication in the face of water crises: a community perspective on challenges and best practice in HELPING

Science communication is key in hydrological research - no matter if it’s sharing the results of studies with decision-makers, collaborating with international colleagues and knowledge partners, or organising discussions with communities affected by the process or outcomes of the research. However, science communication can be a major barrier for many hydrologists. This paper aims to outline best-practice solutions to the principal challenges they face.
Methods and Data
To get a better understanding of hydrologists’ views of science communication, this paper used:
● Interviews with 12 hydrologists, many of them in senior positions, who have been involved with IAHS for a long time
● Interviews with 22 people in the water sector working for NGOs, private companies, government agencies, and as independent researchers and consultants
● One hybrid and three virtual workshops to hold focus-group discussions among hydrologists and industry experts, in total 67 responses
● A digital survey which led to 100 responses on multiple choice and open ended questions
Results
The paper’s results show that the principal challenges hydrologists face are messaging overload, jargon barriers, a lack of science communication training, and the lack of value assigned to science communication during career progression.
Respondents emphasize that hydrology communication is best if it is audience-centric, serves a specific purpose, has a compelling narrative, and is in an appropriate format. Some examples of best practices highlighted are plain-language abstracts, multi-level communication such as one-page summaries preceding detailed reports, and monthly updates on projects and initiatives. Respondents also underlined the effectiveness of sending fewer, highly-personalized messages to specific people. For communication beyond scientific audiences, trust building and acknowledging local actors was recommended. Best-practice approaches for structuring individual messages have been distilled into the FUSS framework.

Statistics:
● Science communication is highly valued by hydrologists. 70% say that they feel a personal responsibility to engage with non-scientific actors about their research.
● 82% believe that science communication and engaging local actors needs to be a standard part of projects.
● Among internal communication channels, most hydrologists prefer to stick to email - the first preference of 83%. This is followed by conferences (63%) and social media (45%).
● Among social media platforms, LinkedIn is most popular among hydrologists (64%).
● Only 22% of survey respondents have received training on communicating science to a wider public.
Conclusions
Given the importance of science communication, it needs to be better-recognized by institutions as an integral part of hydrologists’ CVs. Funding needs to be available specifically for science communication projects, and communication strategies should form a standard part of funding proposals. In the publication sphere, barriers need to be lowered for interdisciplinary studies and plain-language summaries need to be standardised. Broad science communication training should be a standard part of course offers at Masters' and PhD levels.