Content uploaded by Bhamini Kamudu Applasawmy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bhamini Kamudu Applasawmy on Apr 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
JCOM
Models to build capacity for African science centres and
science communication: needs and assets
Graham J. Walker, Leapotswe Bantsi, Siphesihle Bukhosini,
Knowledge Chikundi, Akash Dusrath, Martin Kafeero,
Bhamini Kamudu Applasawmy, Kenneth Monjero Igadwa,
Kabelo Moswetsi, Sandile Rikhotso, Marthinus J. Schwartz and
Puleng Tsie
Science communication is proliferating in the developing world, however,
with respect to science centres, as a whole Africa is being left behind. Here
15 participants in a capacity building program are investigated using
traditional needs-based and contemporary asset-based development
conceptualisations. These development theories parallel deficit and
participatory approaches, respectively, within science communication and
demonstrate synergies between the fields. Data showed staffing, funding,
governments, host institutions, and audiences are prominent needs and
assets, networks are a major asset, and identified other influential factors.
Analysis suggests a coordinated model involving individuals, host
institutions and governments to facilitate growth of African science centres.
Abstract
Science centres and museums; Science communication in the developing
world; Science communication: theory and models
Keywords
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205DOI
Submitted: 22nd October 2019
Accepted: 18th December 2019
Published: 17th February 2020
Introduction The practice of science communication is spreading globally, however, progress in
Africa — while having bright spots — is lagging, particularly regarding science
centres, outreach programs and informal science learning [Trautmann and
Monjero, 2019]. With one third of the world’s population predicted to be living in
Africa by 2050, and 60 percent of the current population under 35 [UNESCO, 2020],
institutions such as science centres, working alongside formal education, can play
an important role building the skills and knowledge key for knowledge-based
economies [Third World Academy of Sciences, 2004]. As noted by UNESCO, “the
promotion of a culture of science, of technological skills for young people, in
particular . . . have a potentially significant impact on [African countries’] youth
capacity building and employability” [UNESCO, 2020].
Article Journal of Science Communication 19(01)(2020)A05 1
This paper shares research on an African science centre and outreach program
capacity building project. First, we locate the role of science communication in
development and highlight theoretical parallels between the two. We then review
science communication capacity building with an emphasis on Africa and science
centres, and describe Science Circus Africa as a case study. We then discuss research
on a capacity building program conducted with 15 ‘pioneers’ — current and
emerging leaders, some employed in host institutions, some solely
individuals — of the sector in Southern and East Africa. The research concentrates
on the needs and assets for building African science centre capacity, in line with
asset-based approaches to development. Finally, recommendations for science
centre development in Africa are given.
Before continuing, it is acknowledged that Africa is an incredibly diverse continent,
every country is unique, however for clarity and brevity the term Africa is often
used to describe multiple countries in Southern and East Africa. This is not to take
away from the distinctive peoples, cultures, histories and approaches to science
communication in specific countries.
Science
communication
and
development —
practical and
theoretical
linkages
Science communication has a vital role to play in development [Dickson, 2004].
This is seen at the policy level, for example in South Africa’s 1996 White Paper on
Science and Technology [Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology,
1996]:
For the national system of Innovation to become effective and successful all
South Africans should participate. This requires a society which understands
and values science, engineering and technology and their critical role in
ensuring national prosperity and a sustainable environment. This, in turn
requires that SET information be disseminated as widely as possible in ways
understood and appreciated by the general public. (pp. 76–77).
Similarly, the founding director of SciDev.Net and stalwart of science journalism in
the developing world, David Dickson, characterised development as the
application of science and technology and highlighted that “building the capacity
to absorb and make use of scientific and technical knowledge must be placed at the
heart of the development aid efforts” [Dickson, 2004, p. 28, italics added].
As a common context for science communication, science centres have heeded this
message and highlighted science that underpins development, including aligning
with the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs United Nations, 2019]. This
has occurred at all levels, from commitments by associations [Massarani, 2016] to
the activities of individual centres globally [Association of Science and Technology
Centers — International Science Center and Museum Day, 2019]. Science centres
are positioned to play a role in the communication and implementation of the SDGs.
More broadly, science communication will be indispensable for progress — effective
public engagement is critical to the social change and application
of science and technology that will facilitate progress on many of the SDGs.
The connections between science communication and development, however, go
beyond practicalities — there are striking parallels between theoretical models and
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 2
their evolution. The transition from deficit to dialogue to participatory/public
engagement approaches is well documented in science communication [Davies and
Horst, 2016; Masson, Metcalfe and Osseweijer, 2016; Trench, 2008]. While not
necessarily a continuum [Davies and Horst, 2016], the transition is typified by more
interactivity with publics [Trench, 2008] and, more fundamentally, an
acknowledgment that publics can aid communication and science itself — or as
Masson and colleagues put it, discussing Irwin [2008], “some publics are seen to
bring some useful knowledge and resources to science and policymaking”. Science
communication has moved from thinking of publics’ knowledge as the problem to
‘fix’, to publics being part of the solution.
This trend parallels the progression community and international development.
Historically, development focussed on the needs, or problems, that hinder
development, i.e. deficits. Kretzmann and McKnight [1993] highlight “this “needs”
map determines how problems are to be addressed, through deficiency-oriented
policies and programs” (p. 2). They go on to note the negative implications on
communities (publics): people think of themselves as fundamentally deficient and
hence powerless; externally facilitated solutions are fragmented rather than
acknowledging wider linkages known within the community; and the perception
that only outside experts have useful information and solutions. One could criticise
the deficit model on the same basis.
McKnight and Kretzmann’s response is to instead focus on the capacities and skills
of people, groups and institutions in the community, or Asset-Based Community
Development (ABCD). According to Mathie and Cunningham [2003], “ABCD rests
on the principle that a recognition of strengths and assets is more likely to inspire
positive action for change in a community than is an exclusive focus on needs and
problems”, or as Morse [2011] puts it “it shifts the conversation from thinking of
citizens as objects to fix to assets to tap” (p. 10). In parallel with participatory
science communication models, Morse stresses for community development “we
must engage the public at a deeper level in deliberating about the choices and
possibilities before us” (p. 12).
Some key elements of ABCD include shared knowledge and understandings, a
focus on relationships, associations and networks, a relocation of power and
decision making, and greater participation and hence buy-in by communities
[Mathie and Cunningham, 2003]. The parallels to dialogue and participatory
models of science communication are clear; discussions of scientists and publics
creating knowledge, shifts in power, and the role of networks and diverse actors in
decision making are commonly discussed in the science communication literature
[cf. Masson, Metcalfe and Osseweijer, 2016]. More fundamentally, in line with
shifts in power and agency, both ABCD and participatory approaches start with the
assumption that publics offer unique value to both the process and potential
outcomes, and this value is rarely something possessed by development agencies
or science communicators.
ABCD’s origins illustrate further synergies between effective approaches in
development and science communication. ABCD grew out of a shift from viewing
development as solely economic growth to also considering social development
[Green and Haines, 2015; Ssewamala et al., 2010]. Key to this broadening was the
work of Sen [1999] who proposed the increase of an individual’s freedom and
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 3
capabilities as both the aim and method of development. Mirroring realisations in
science communication, Sen concludes:
The ends and means of development call for placing the perspective of
freedom at the center of the stage. The people have to be seen, in this
perspective, as being actively involved — given the opportunity — in shaping
their own destiny, and not just as passive recipients of the fruits of cunning
development programs. (p. 53)
Contemporary approaches to both science communication and development are
fundamentally about individual’s and/or publics’ value and agency — how they
can shape science or development. While this is not an exhaustive synthesis of the
two fields, particularly with respect to development theory, these parallels begin to
position the methods and models used in science communication as a counterpart,
or perhaps subset, of development. They also suggest the two fields could benefit
from more exchange and collaboration both theoretically and practically.
Science
communication:
development and
capacity building
As an emerging discipline, especially in the developing world, a good deal of
capacity building in science communication has occurred recently. The United
Nations define capacity building as “the process by which individuals,
organizations, institutions and societies develop abilities to perform functions,
solve problems and set and achieve objectives. It needs to be addressed at three
inter-related levels: individual, institutional and societal” [United Nations
Economic and Social Council, 2006, p. 7].
Gibson [2001] also notes this multilevel conceptualisation and importantly frames
the capacity building recipient as having ownership of objectives:
“People helping people to build skills to change their own future. Skills can be
built on a number of levels, including at the level of the individual,
organization, community or system.” (p. 4).
Weiler and Ham [2002], describing a program of capacity building and
environmental tour guide training — a science communication context — focus on
the ultimate goal of enabling those receiving capacity building to turn into
providers, stating “ultimately, the development of local know-how, and the
preparation of a cadre of professionals capable of training others, represents the
goal of human capacity building in a sustainable development context” (pp. 53–54).
Other critical factors for science communication capacity building include mutual
commitment by both those providing and receiving, defined focus and shared
goals, and understanding of the needs of those receiving training [Fog, 2004; Weiler
and Ham, 2002]. Underpinning this is the context in developing countries
(typically recipients of capacity building, though the two-way benefits are
significant) is likely to be different to a developed country (typically the provider),
so input, consultation, shared understanding and flexibility is needed from both
sides — approaches need to be adapted and models that worked in one place may
not in others [Lewenstein and Joubert, 2002]. Effective capacity building comes
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 4
from partnerships and an ability to ‘walk in the others shoes’. Beyond immediate
stakeholders, government support and wider networks have also been highlighted
as key for growth of science communication in the developing world [Barata,
Caldas and Gascoigne, 2018].
Science communication capacity building in Africa typically addresses
communication between researchers and publics, e.g. teaching researchers
communication skills [e.g. Khanna, 2001] or better understanding researcher-led
public engagement [e.g. Ndlovu, Joubert and Boshoff, 2016]. Capacity building
research in science centres and similar settings is comparatively sparse, particularly
outside of South Africa, and there is little published material.
Science centre
capacity building
in Africa
The role of science centres and informal learning settings in science communication
has been widely identified [International Council for Science, 2006; Bell et al., 2009].
In their report Building Scientific Capacity, the Third World Academy of Sciences
specifically highlight science centres, especially for youth, and emphasise the need
for capacity building [Third World Academy of Sciences, 2004].
As a global movement science centres have made commitments to capacity
building, pledging to “expand the activities of our sector to places and communities
where science centres are needed and wanted but not yet established” [Fifth
Science Centre World Congress, 2008] and “encourage the establishment of science
centres and museums in parts of the world where they are lacking” [Sixth Science
Centre World Congress, 2011]. This congress also included a capacity building
workshop for participants across Africa and a commitment to further action,
which was part of the impetus for the Science Circus Africa project described below.
Many individual projects, partnerships, and science centre associations have
implemented capacity building activities. As a global movement comprised of nine
geographically-based associations, however, science centres have made little
coordinated progress towards capacity building in Africa. A barrier is that
member-based associations exist to serve their members, and emerging centres in
developing countries are rarely members. Some associations do look beyond their
region and membership, for example the north American quasi-global Association
of Science and Technology Centres provide conference fellowships for Africans and
promote global dialogue [Association of Science and Technology Centers, 2015],
and the Indian National Council of Science Museums was pivotal in establishing a
centre in Mauritius. Nevertheless, there is scope for increased, globally coordinated
capacity building to promote growth of science centres in the developing world,
especially in Africa.
Status of science
centres in Africa
and other
developing
regions
Science centres have grown considerably in some countries in Africa over the past
15 years. Membership of the Southern African Association of Science and
Technology Centres shows only two of the 59 members are from outside South
Africa [Southern Africa Association of Science & Technology Centres, 2019]. The
North Africa and Middle East Science Centers Network lists centres in Egypt and
Tunisia, however most members are in the Middle East [NAMES, 2018]. These
statistics, however, do not capture smaller centres without association/network
membership.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 5
A recent study assessing numbers of science centres in Africa concluded there were
40 centres in Africa, representing five percent of centres globally, and also
highlighted South Africa’s large share [Trautmann and Monjero, 2019]. They stated
that in Africa:
. . . only 8 countries (15%) have at least one science center. South Africa has 32
(80% of African science centers), with the rest of Africa being served by only 8
science centers (20%, some of them very small or still emerging). The vast
majority of people in Africa (well over 1.1 billion) have no access to a science
center. (p. 3).
In parallel to this, only one university on the continent, South Africa’s Stellenbosch
University, offers science communication (as opposed to journalism) at degree level
[Joubert, 2018] — though a recent South African white paper proposes integrating
science communication throughout tertiary science studies [Department of Science
and Technology, 2018]. This has implications for the skills and knowledge of
potential staff and the awareness and status of science communication careers — a
profession backed up by a specialised degree has wider credibility.
The situation is contrasted by that of Latin America and the Caribbean. Initial
establishment of centres in the 1990s has grown to over 470 science centres and
museums as of 2015 according to RedPOP, the Latin American and Caribbean
Network for the Popularization of Science and Technology, with 22 postgraduate
science communication courses across five countries [Massarani et al., 2016]. The
general public are also increasingly visiting science centres, with a Brazilian survey
seeing growth from 4% in 2006 to 12% in 2015 [Barata, Caldas and Gascoigne,
2018], which is comparable to the last surveyed levels in the European Union of
16% [European Commission, 2005].
Taken together, this suggests that the science centre sector across Africa is being left
behind compared to other developing regions, underscoring a need for capacity
building in the region — especially given the role that science centres can play in
sustainable development as highlighted by UNESCO [Bokova, 2017].
Applying
asset-based
approaches to
science centre
capacity building
The research presented here seeks to apply asset-based approaches from
development theory to inform science communication capacity building. This
paper focuses on research on leaders and individuals pivotal to the development of
science centres in Southern and East Africa who have been involved in Science
Circus Africa capacity building programs both in Africa and Australia. The main
program involves capacity building through partnership and co-delivery of
real-world outreach programs; embedding training in authentic settings to
maximise effectiveness [Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein, 2017; Silva and Bultitude,
2009]. The program has reached 10 African countries and 73,300 people (mainly
youth) and trained 499 people from African partner organisations, with a smaller
cohort receiving in-depth training over several weeks. The program’s African
partners have gone on to independently run programs reaching over 200,000
people and counting, demonstrating the program is effective at building
sustainable capacity.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 6
Figure 1. Presenters from Botswana and Australia co-deliver a bilingual science show in
Botswana as part of the Science Circus Africa capacity building program.
Methods Participants
15 individuals from across Southern and East Africa were recruited into the
research and a wider leadership program as part of the Australia Award
Fellowships (an Australian Government supported short-course program for
outstanding current and emerging leaders). The 15 participants were selected from
a wider pool of 21 on overall track record, previous collaborations and interactions,
passion and motivation (including a written piece), and consultation with African
colleagues and country experts. The sample, while on appearance small, is
representative of individuals and organisations in the region aiming to establish
science centres and outreach programs; they are nascent and involve few
people — the exception being South Africa where the sector is well developed
[Trautmann and Monjero, 2019]. Countries and numbers of participants
represented were Botswana (2), Kenya (1), Malawi (2), Mauritius (1), Namibia (2),
South Africa (5), Tanzania/Uganda (1) and Zimbabwe (1). The group included staff
working in: independent science centres (4); university-based science
centres/outreach programs (4); cultural museums (2); research organisations (1);
government (2); and small (essentially one-person) NGOs (2). Of the 15, four came
from established science centres, two from small emerging centres, and the
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 7
remaining nine were all active in running outreach programs with aspirations to
build science centres. Six were female and nine male.
The research was approved by the Australian National University Human
Research Ethics Committee, protocol: 2017/107.
Survey
A survey was administered to gauge assets and needs. A survey was chosen to
allow participants time to reflect on their circumstances in an environment separate
to the researcher and also because of practical considerations around time
available, connectivity and the geographic spread of participants. The survey
included open-ended questions about the top five problems/difficulties (needs)
participants faced along with the top five things that helped (assets).
Analysis
Survey responses were coded using open and axial coding [Strauss and Corbin,
1990]. Open coding establishes general emergent categories from within the data in
a similar way to Grounded Theory Analysis, while axial coding establishes
linkages among the emergent themes to understand the relationships among the
variables. Such approaches are considered advantageous over more rigid coding
approaches as they allow research findings to emerge from the data without the
restraints imposed by more structured methodologies [Glaser and Strauss, 1967;
Hay, 2010]. While all coding was completed by a single author (G.J.W.), to ensure
that emerging themes were valid and relevant, the evolving interpretations were
continually verified against the raw data from which they were derived [following
previous studies, e.g. Cvitanovic et al., 2018]. Categories and descriptions were
then shared with all authors for consideration, review and refinement, however,
formal interrater reliability processes were not conducted due to the limited
research experience of some authors. The authors’ experience with capacity
building and science centre programs helped inform initial categories, however
new categories emerged and some required division. Many responses did not code
into a discreet category and where trends were identified these highlighted linkages
(i.e. axial coding; how assets were linked to other assets and similarly for needs).
Results Needs and assets categories
Twelve categories were identified through coding (Table 1). The frequency of codes
and description of categories, along with linkages, is presented below.
Needs and assets — frequency, description and linkages
Frequencies from coding are presented in Table 2. Coding revealed many
categories had both asset and need dimensions and there were clear linkages
between certain categories.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 8
Table 1. Categories of needs and assets.
Category Description
Staffing Personnel involved in staffing science centres and outreach pro-
grams, including management staff, volunteers and interns.
Facilities Buildings, workshops and infrastructure, e.g. purpose-built science
centres, rooms or buildings repurposed as such, university build-
ings, etc.
Funding Cash and in-kind support required to fund programs, staff and
overheads, including funding sources such as grants.
Government Government agencies including ministries of science and techno-
logy, from general bureaucrats to politicians/Ministers, but exclud-
ing education departments and government schools.
Hosts Umbrella institutions that host science centres or outreach func-
tions, specifically universities, cultural museums or research insti-
tutions.
Equipment Materials required for programs such as hands-on activities, sci-
ence shows, etc. including everyday items, but excluding interact-
ive exhibits.
Exhibits Interactive science centre exhibits, but typically with lower cost
construction.
Audiences Key audiences for programs, primarily schools, students and teach-
ers — including respective government departments — and asso-
ciated stakeholders such as parents. African science centres and
outreach programs have less focus on the general public compared
to developed nations.
Mobility The ability of mainly programs but also audiences to travel, includ-
ing access to vehicles.
Evaluation Skills, knowledge and activity in assessing programs, particularly
impact assessment and reporting.
Marketing/media Public relations, such as preparing press releases and promotional
materials and engaging journalists.
Networks Personal and organisational networks, within and between African
countries and internationally, and for larger organisations internal
networks.
The following sections describe the nature of the needs and assets based on
participants’ responses. Frequency is described as minor (1–4 mentions), midrange
(5–9) and major (10 and above). Where coding revealed linkages between two
codes, to avoid repetition, these are reported in the category where the trend was
most dominant and clearly seen, e.g. in the linkage between assets of facilities and
hosts, hosts were linked to a range of other categories, while with facilities the link
to hosts was discrete and dominant. Nexus categories that were highly interlinked
with many categories, such as funding, are also discussed.
Staffing
Needs. Staffing was the second highest major need, with participants noting a
lack of staff, few training opportunities, low expertise which affected morale and
enthusiasm, and limited funds for wages — with many participants highlighting
the reliance on volunteers and/or self-funding. Staff retention and turnover was
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 9
Table 2. Needs and assets coding frequencies. Linkages are shown in brackets where a link
was dominant, i.e. there was a discrete link to just one other category, and/or where it was
interlinked to several other categories.
Category Needs Assets
Staffing 14 14 (3 Government)
Facilities 6 (3 Funding) 3 (2 Hosts)
Funding 17 (5 Government; 7 interlinked) 9 (7 interlinked)
Government 10 (5 Funds; 2 interlinked) 10 (6 interlinked)
Host institutions 7 (2 interlinked) 13 (8 interlinked)
Equipment 6 5
Exhibits 6 (3 Audiences) 1
Audiences 10 (6 interlinked) 13 (4 interlinked)
Mobility 3 3 (3 interlinked)
Evaluation 3 (2 Funding)
PR / media 2 4 (3 interlinked)
Networks 2 13 (6 interlinked)
problematic, and exacerbated by a lack of career pathways and science
communication not being an established profession. Often leadership and
management skills were lacking, and there were barriers to accessing higher-level
training/qualifications. Human resource issues meant staff were reactive, juggling
multiple sometimes conflicting roles, and program impact was compromised.
Assets. Staffing was the most frequently mentioned major asset, with most assets
being personal qualities. Staff were passionate, committed and motivated (“love
for science — keeps us going in the hard times” — South Africa). They enjoyed the
team atmosphere, collegial support, and vibrant work culture. Several respondents
mentioned the willingness and generosity of volunteers (“I have a team of 15 and
all are volunteers. They are so enthusiastic and willing to run programs and
assemble exhibits even without pay” — Kenya) and the importance of organised
volunteer programs. Another common theme was government paid
volunteer/internship programs (a major program in South Africa) and government
support for wages — asset coding revealed a clear linkage between staff and
government.
Facilities
Needs. Facilities was a midrange need (despite nine participants lacking a
physical centre), though its absence limited programs/venues, had cost
implications for alternative venues, and created storage and equipment
maintenance problems. Large capital costs compounded by unfamiliarity with
centres amongst politicians and decision makers who may fund construction were
a common challenge. Coding revealed clear relationships between facilities and
funding.
Assets. The benefits of a building were reported as a minor asset. Participants in
host institutions such as universities, cultural museums and research organisations
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 10
were positive about the access to facilities this entailed, and coding showed a clear
link between facilities and host institutions. Participants noted that it was more
than just a building; the physical presence helped establish their brand, gave a
space for evolution and continual improvement, and aided logistics (“Having the
available infrastructure, in terms of physical facilities, resources and previous
programs, allows for programs to be run more efficiently and more
effectively” — South Africa).
Funding
Needs. Funding was the most frequently noted major need, limiting equipment,
staffing, facilities and programs. It was widely interlinked to needs in other
categories. Reliance on government funding was a common problem, often due to
bureaucratic complications and unreliability. There were few income streams,
which limited scope/diversity of activities, and little private sector support.
Respondents noted the lack of thorough evaluation hampered securing funds.
Assets. Funding was a midrange asset, with respondents emphasising host
institution and government provided salaries, the critical need for executive
support, and difficulty sourcing salaries from sponsorship or cost recovery models.
Funding via grants, diplomatic missions, and corporates was
highlighted — especially for operational costs and special projects. Visibility, media
coverage and reputation were cited as underpinning factors. Like funding as a
need, it was highly interlinked with other assets.
Government
Needs. Government was a major need, with shallow understanding of a science
centre/outreach program’s role a key underlying problem. This included
scepticism of the educational value and confusion of the relationship to formal
science education. General issues such as limited/sporadic funding, stifling
bureaucracy, slow implementation and political interference were noted. While
linked to other categories, there was a prominent linkage to funding needs.
Assets. Government was a major asset, particularly re support for salaries,
internships, operations and programs — coding revealed strong links to funding
and staff (“Without their funding support the programme would not be able to take
place. From providing transportation for the learners to enabling materials for
activities to be purchased for workshops and shows as well as covering salary costs
for staff” — South Africa). Buy-in and endorsement was reported as important,
especially amongst politicians and high-level decision makers.
Hosts
Needs. Host institution needs were midrange and similar to issues with
government: problematic bureaucracy and confusion around the role and value of
science centres/outreach. This negatively impacted funding and created conflicting
priorities (e.g. science communication being seen solely as a public relations
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 11
activity). One respondent noted restrictions on public access to the host institution
limited engagement.
Assets. Host institutions were a major asset, equal second most mentioned, and
were widely linked to other assets. High-level support and executive champions
were a critical theme, especially for host institution funding. Hosts provided
support services, media, marketing, facilities, buildings and especially vehicles.
They also facilitated internal networks and collaboration and, in universities and
research institutions, straightforward involvement of scientists — this was
especially valuable as it increased ownership by hosts and provided supportive
expert personnel at no cost. Mirroring the public access need, participants noted
when the host was a public venue like a museum this provided a ready audience
(“The museum is already a public space by its nature so the bringing in of science
related exhibits allow our visitors to tour and appreciate the science
displays” — Malawi). This range of support/benefits from hosts meant it was
highly interlinked with other assets.
Equipment
Needs. Equipment was a midrange need, with respondents noting little
equipment, lack of funding for it, and problems obtaining specialist equipment
locally. A key theme was participant’s limited design skills, creating reliance on
existing equipment or third parties — this hampered repeat engagement with
audiences as they quickly see everything.
Assets. Equipment was a midrange asset, primarily because simple, everyday
materials and even waste materials could be used (“Wastes has been gold to
me — most materials that are termed as not important turns out very important to
me. I easily do science shows even along the road without having planned. I can
use old threads, papers, balloons, sticks, nature; like insects collection, etc. to
showcase science” — Kenya). Moreover, everyday materials were an asset as
students and teachers could replicate activities.
Exhibits
Needs. Needs around hands-on exhibits were midrange and coding showed a
clear linkage to audiences and their experience — including old/worn exhibits,
maintenance problems, having too few exhibits for large groups, and ensuring
safety with limited resources/expertise. Participants noted limited skills in design
and manufacture.
Assets. Portability of exhibits was a minor asset, however overall exhibits were
not commonly mentioned as an asset, despite being a standard feature of a science
centre.
Audiences
Needs. Audiences were a top three major need/problem. Challenges included
diversity of cultures/languages, low English literacy, and underprivileged groups
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 12
(e.g. orphans and people with disabilities) being marginalised due to funding
limitations. There were issues around inclusion (“People/community tend to think
of the [science centre] is for the educated and science people” — South Africa), low
general awareness of services, and teachers sometimes felt threatened by other
educational services.
Assets. Audiences were the equal second most frequently noted major asset,
primarily through strong relationships with schools and endorsement of education
departments promoting access — this in-principle support facilitated practical
assets including school venues, student availability and uptake of teacher
professional development programs and application of ideas in the classroom.
Student and teacher enthusiasm, and their ability to place science in their own
cultural context, was cited as an asset (“Creativity of both teachers and learners . . .
they are able to localise the science programs by using local languages and use
songs and dance to learn science” — Malawi).
Mobility
Needs. Mobility was a minor but significant need that emerged during the coding
process, with participants noting limitations on travel by both their programs and
audiences, meaning it was difficult to reach all parts of their countries, reach
diverse audiences and ensure equity. Lack of vehicles and the difficulty fundraising
for such capital assets was a common theme.
Assets. The mobility of programs was a minor asset, with respondents reporting
travelling programs could reach those who cannot travel to a centre and were a
great way to market programs. Financial support and provision of vehicles by host
institutions was highly valuable.
Evaluation
Needs. A lack of evaluation skills and activity and superficial
evaluation — especially around long-term impact — was reported as a minor need,
though had significant consequences negatively impacting funding and support
from government and host institutions.
Assets. Evaluation was not cited as an asset, perhaps due to it not being widely
conducted and, if done, the lack of in-depth approaches.
Media and marketing
Needs. Media and marketing was reported as a minor need, primarily around an
inability to share success stories effectively, especially to key stakeholders such as
government and funders (“We do great work but many times fail to tell our success
stories. Press, government, funders, the general public, etc. are too often in the dark
about what we are and what we do” — South Africa).
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 13
Assets. Media and marketing were a minor asset, with respondents noting it
allowed them to reach a wider audience, increase awareness/interest and assist
with sponsorship and support. Host institutions marketing departments were
noted as a resource.
Networks
Needs. Networks were a minor need, however respondents did note that they
sometimes felt isolated. One respondent noted that a history of corruption by
NGOs in their country made fundraising especially difficult.
Assets. Networks were the equal second most frequently noted major asset, with
strong links to funding and host institution benefits. Networks outside science
communication provided funding and collaboration from philanthropy, industry
and diplomatic channels and practicalities such as free venues and
equipment — reputation was critical here. Participants also emphasised networks
inside science communication which shared ideas and international best practice,
staff/knowledge/resource exchange, program co-delivery, collaboration across
borders, and access to capacity building, which often opened up wider networks
including internationally (“Capacity building programmes like the Science Circus
Africa visits — these help to expose staff to best practices and motivates them . . . it
provides both inspiration and excitement in staff which they then want to replicate
and helps to facilitate innovative thinking” — South Africa).
Discussion This paper began by comparing models of development and science
communication and drawing parallels between need/deficit and
asset/participatory approaches. Synthesising these conceptually similar
approaches highlighted the role of beneficiaries of development or publics
involved in communication, rather than development professionals or science
communicators, in achieving goals. In both conceptual models, this involved
shifting or sharing power and agency with beneficiaries/publics. We then
discussed capacity building, which again focusses attention on those in which
capacity is being built and — consistent with asset/participatory
approaches — aims to unlock value and empower people, groups and
organisations. In the context of the data presented here, this points to staffing as
central for development of African science centres.
An adage amongst science centre professionals is a centre is as much — probably
more — the people in it, as it is a physical building. Analysis here showed staffing
was a double-edged sword — both an asset and need. While staff enjoyed the work
and were enthusiastic, they lacked training, training opportunities and career
pathways. This same enthusiasm meant organisations benefited from volunteers,
who offset a lack of funding/paid staff, however volunteers were less reliable,
temporary and usually not professionally qualified. In South Africa, there was
reliance on government-paid volunteer programs, whereby unemployed science
graduates are placed with science centres and receive a stipend. While findings
showed they are an asset to centres with meagre budgets, they are subject to similar
drawbacks as unpaid volunteers: their motivation varies and they see it as a
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 14
stepping stone to other opportunities [Edwards and Graham, 2006]. This suggests
that — unless there are pathways to paid jobs and careers — volunteers are a
stop-gap rather than longer-term staff capacity building.
A critical subset of staffing in any developing sector are those in leadership
roles — those pioneering science centres in countries where they are not yet
established. In this research that included self-funded individual pioneers (e.g. one
participant converted a family run tavern into a science centre) and others who
worked from within hosts (e.g. moving from a lab biotechnologist to a science
communication leader, or transforming university recruitment into a dynamic
hands-on outreach program). In analysing 150 stories of community development,
Mathie and Cunningham [2005] found a similar role for these pioneers,
highlighting:
“What stands out in these stories is the role of particular individuals who
catalyze the process of development in their communities, and the strong base
of associations or social networks that are mobilized in such a process. These
catalysts may . . . emerge because they have had some formal education, or
they have travelled or worked elsewhere and returned with new ideas.”
(p. 176)
Networks, education, travel and new ideas were frequently highlighted in analysis
and typified the pioneers described above. Mathie and Cunningham [2005] go on
to note that these pioneers stimulate pride and possibility, link with supporters,
and “recognize the potential within the community” (p. 176), again linking to
assets such as audiences and volunteers. This furthers parallels to ABCD argued
earlier and suggests the role of pioneers is key for development of science
communication in Africa.
The program described here sought to build capacity in these pioneers, however
definitions of capacity building stress multilevel aspects; beyond individuals.
Hence, two categories that warrant further investigation are government and hosts,
who provide capacity at the organisation-level. They were frequently mentioned
needs and assets, however, with government the balance was even, while with
hosts it was clearly weighted towards being an asset. Unpacking this relationship is
revealing.
Looking at needs, with government, coding revealed a strong relationship between
the funding they provide and additional challenges that creates — there is much
needed support but with strings attached. While data showed similar issues for
university hosts, the problems were not so evident. That is not to discount the key
role government plays via policy, funding and establishing science communication
departments. This was critical to rapid growth in Brazil [Barata, Caldas and
Gascoigne, 2018] and South Africa [Du Plessis, 2008], with recent government
accreditation programs and capacity building in the latter further assisting. The
data, however, does suggest that streamlining government processes may assist
science centres to grow.
Turning to assets, both government and hosts were key for providing staff and
funding, and in both cases having high-level political/executive champions was
crucial. Hosts, however, also brought added benefits of facilities, networks, media
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 15
support and mobility/vehicles. Ronen Mir, discussing Ethiopian science centre
capacity building, made similar observations, recommending “partner[ing] with a
top-notch local university that provides a building, staff, and resources”
[Association of Science and Technology Centers, 2015]. Analysis also revealed that,
while challenging, on balance there was greater understanding of the role/value of
centres in hosts as compared to government. This is understandable given hosts
and centres have a close structural and strategic relationship. Conversely, centres’
relationships with politicians and the underlying bureaucracy is more removed
and variable due to policy focus, election cycles and changes of political
representatives. While this suggests that hosts may be a better environment to
nurture science centre development, one must note that in the African context (and
many others) the largest funder of hosts is the government.
Taken together, this positions hosts as a key intermediary — they mitigate some of
the disadvantages that come with government support, while adding practical
benefits and facilitating closer, more integrated relationships. Moreover, the data
highlight a role for cultural museums as they are already public facing
organisations, while universities — while not public facing — bring unique benefits
especially a scientific culture and scientists.
Critically, hosts provide opportunities and resources for the pioneers within them,
again a feature observed in development studies. Extending Sen’s [1999] work on
development as an increase of individual freedom, Stewart [2013] argued that social
institutions (hosts) affect individual’s capabilities and freedoms, and hence are
pivotal for development. This is illustrated in the data presented here, e.g. pioneers
based within hosts can access vehicle assets, while in those without hosts it is a
pressing need. Clearly hosts area central part of developing science centres in Africa.
Conclusion and
implications
The findings presented here reflect the lived experience of pioneers of the science
centre movement in Southern and East Africa, and hence an incredibly valuable
perspective to inform recommendations for growth. The conceptual frame
presented here, focussing on asset-based and participatory approaches and shifting
power and agency, is also useful for framing these recommendations. Based on
this, a three-tiered model based on pioneers situated at hosts within a constructive
government environment emerges:
1. Empowerment of pioneers, and those they lead — pioneers are best placed to
take African science centres forward. Analysis suggests they should pursue
growth opportunities for staff and volunteers to foster career development,
formalise volunteer programs, develop high-level relationships with champions
within government and host institutions, and focus on developing capabilities
that promote freedom and agency such as content creation, fundraising,
evaluation and research (it is noted the lead author of this paper is not African
and in some ways that is problematic; [cf. Ninnes, 1996]). Networks, leadership
programs, mentoring and other ways to empower pioneers and let others
emerge should be advanced — including via international collaboration — and
these will thrive when based on asset-based approaches that promote pioneer’s
agency, innovation and goals.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 16
2. Host institutions — analysis here shows umbrella organisations play a key role
in sustainability, growth and impact of African science centres. Universities,
research institutes and museums are all effective hosts and bring different
advantages. Broadening and deepening relationships with potential hosts will
be a major asset for pioneers, and vice versa, and for those already within
organisations nurturing relationships will bear fruit — including leveraging host
capabilities (facilities, vehicles, etc.) and in stakeholder engagement, particularly
as an intermediary to government. Establishing shared value and articulating
the role of centres and the benefits they bring to hosts will be an asset to both
pioneers and hosts.
3. Government — the above recommendations will flourish in a constructive
policy context. Developing science communication policy, funding structures
and dedicated departments, as has underpinned South Africa and Brazil’s rapid
growth, is critical. The value of centres will be enhanced when they are mindful
of country contexts and government perspectives, while shared awareness
across associated departments (science, education, culture, etc.) will allow
centres to fully integrate with the machinery of government. Policy
implementation needs to be mindful not to create additional needs as it fosters
assets for the sector.
These recommendations, based on the insights of those developing the sector, focus
on steps that can be taken within individual African countries or bolstered through
regional collaboration, in line with the ethos of capacity building and ABCD.
Nevertheless, international collaboration corresponding to the above
recommendations — people to people, host to host, and government to
government — can complement, and science centre networks and science peak
bodies can play an important coordination role. International collaboration will be
most effective when it focusses on capacity building, supports African agency,
involves ongoing relationships rather than one-off projects, and wherever possible
co-develops goals, content and methodologies to enhance — and be led
by — African ingenuity.
As the African proverb says, “if you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go
far, go together ”. This paper hopes to encourage and inform more collaboration
and activity both within Africa and internationally to develop African science
centres and empower them to play an even greater role in science communication
and the continent’s development.
Acknowledgments Thank you to all participants in the research for their enthusiasm and
determination, which has energised Science Circus Africa on program and personal
levels. We would also like to acknowledge the program’s champions and pioneers:
Mike Gore, Sue Stockylmayer, Joan Leach, Graham Durant, and support from the
Australian Government. The authors are grateful to Sujatha Raman and Chris
Cvitanovic, along with anonymous reviewers, for constructive comments on earlier
drafts of this paper.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 17
References Association of Science and Technology Centers (18th October 2015). Emerging
science centers in Africa: learning as a field, four years after Cape Town.
URL:https://www.astc.org/annual-conference/emerging-science-centers
-in-africa-learning-as-a-field-four-years-after-cape-town/.
Association of Science and Technology Centers — International Science Center and
Museum Day (2019). Addressing the SDGs in Science Centers.
URL:http://www.iscsmd.org/sdgs-in-science-centers/.
Baram-Tsabari, A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). ‘Science communication training:
what are we trying to teach?’ International Journal of Science Education, Part B 7
(3), pp. 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756.
Barata, G., Caldas, G. and Gascoigne, T. (2018). ‘Brazilian science communication
research: national and international contributions’. Anais da Academia Brasileira
de Ciências 90 (2 suppl.1), pp. 2523–2542.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160822.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W. and Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in
informal environments: people, places and pursuits. Washington, DC, U.S.A.:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190.
Bokova, I. (21st May 2017). Message from Ms Irina Bokova, director-general of
UNESCO, on the occasion of the world day for cultural diversity for dialogue and
development.
URL:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248268E.pdf.
Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., Norström, A. V. and Reed, M. S. (2018). ‘Building
university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on
environmental policy and practice’. PLOS ONE 13 (9), e0203752.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203752.
Davies, S. R. and Horst, M. (2016). Science Communication: culture, identity and
citizenship. London, New York and Shanghai: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50366-4.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (1996). White paper on science
and technology. Pretoria, South Africa.
URL:http://www.gov.za/documents/science-and-technology-white-paper.
Department of Science and Technology (2018). White paper on science, technology and
innovation.URL:https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/2
01809/41909gon954.pdf.
Dickson, D. (2004). ‘Science and technology communication for development’. PLoS
Biology 2 (1), e11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020011.
Du Plessis, H. (2008). ‘Public communication of science and technology in
developing countries’. In: Handbook of Public Communication of Science and
Technology. Ed. by M. Bucchi and B. Trench. London, U.K. and New York,
U.S.A.: Routledge, pp. 213–223.
Edwards, D. and Graham, M. (2006). ‘Museum volunteers: a discussion of
challenges facing managers in the cultural and heritage sectors’. Australian
Journal on Volunteering 11, pp. 19–27.
European Commission (2005). Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, science and
technology.
Fifth Science Centre World Congress (2008). The Toronto declaration.
Fog, L. (15th February 2004). Capacity building “key to successful collaboration”.
URL:https://www.scidev.net/global/news/capacity-building-key-to-suc
cessful-collaboration.html (visited on 15th January 2019).
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 18
Gibson, G. (2001). Building partnerships: key elements of capacity building an
exploration of experiences with mining communities in Latin America. [MMSD
working paper no. 33]. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development
(MMSD). URL:http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G00538.pdf.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL, U.S.A.: Aldine.
Green, G. P. and Haines, A. (2015). Asset building & community development.
4th ed. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: SAGE Publications.
Hay, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in human geography. Toronto, ON,
Canada: Oxford University Press.
International Council for Science (2006). Priority area assessment on capacity building
in science.
Irwin, A. (2008). ‘Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking
about scientific culture’. In: Handbook of Public Communication of Science and
Technology. Ed. by M. Bucchi and B. Trench. London, U.K. and New York,
U.S.A.: Routledge, pp. 199–212.
Joubert, M. (2018). Personal communication.
Khanna, J. (2001). ‘Science Communication in Developing Countries: Experience
from WHO Workshops’. Science Communication 23 (1), pp. 50–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023001005.
Kretzmann, J. and McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out.
Evanston, IL, U.S.A.: Institute for Policy Research.
Lewenstein, B. V. and Joubert, M. (8th–9th December 2002). Achieving public
understanding of research in developing countries. Cape Town, South Africa.
Massarani, L. (15th November 2016). Science museums and UNESCO join to meet
SDGs.URL:https://www.scidev.net/asia-pacific/education/scidev-net-
at-large/science-museums-unesco-sdgs-1.html (visited on 12th February
2019).
Massarani, L., Reynoso-Haynes, E., Murriello, S. and Castillo, A. (2016). ‘Science
communication postgraduate studies in Latin America: a map and some food
for thought’. JCOM 15 (05), A03.
URL:https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/05/JCOM_1505_2016_A03.
Masson, A.-L., Metcalfe, J. and Osseweijer, P. (2016). ‘Motivating engagement’. In:
Science and technology education and communication: seeking synergy. Ed. by
M. van der Sanden and M. J. de Vries. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers, pp. 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-738-2_4.
Mathie, A. and Cunningham, G. (2003). ‘From clients to citizens: asset-based
community development as a strategy for community-driven development’.
Development in Practice 13 (5), pp. 474–486.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452032000125857.
— (2005). ‘Who is driving development? Reflections on the transformative
potential of asset-based community development’. Canadian Journal of
Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement 26 (1),
pp. 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2005.9669031.
Morse, S. (2011). ‘Communities revisited: the best ideas of the last hundred years’.
National Civic Review 100 (1), pp. 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.20042.
NAMES (2018). Full members index at www.namesnetwork.org.
URL:http://www.namesnetwork.org/en/Members/Index.aspx?cat=full
(visited on 12th January 2018).
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 19
Ndlovu, H., Joubert, M. and Boshoff, N. (2016). ‘Public science communication in
Africa: views and practices of academics at the National University of Science
and Technology in Zimbabwe’. JCOM 15 (06), A05.
URL:https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/06/JCOM_1506_2016_A05.
Ninnes, P. M. (1996). Informal learning strategies in the Solomon Islands. Adelaide,
SA, Australia: Department of Educational and Professional Studies, School of
Education, Flinders University, pp. 1–16.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Anchor Books.
Silva, J. and Bultitude, K. (2009). ‘Best practice in communications training for
public engagement with science, technology, engineering and mathematics’.
JCOM 08 (02), A03.
URL:https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/02/Jcom0802%282009%29A03.
Sixth Science Centre World Congress (2011). Cape Town declaration.
Southern Africa Association of Science & Technology Centres (2019). SAASTEC
network members.URL:https://saastec.co.za/48-2/ (visited on 13th August
2019).
Ssewamala, F. M., Sperber, E., Zimmerman, J. M. and Karimli, L. (2010). ‘The
potential of asset-based development strategies for poverty alleviation in
Sub-Saharan Africa’. International Journal of Social Welfare 19 (4), pp. 433–443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00738.x.
Stewart, F. (2013). Capabilities and human development: beyond the
individual — the critical role of social institutions and social competencies.
Human Development Reports — UNDP 03. New York, NY, U.S.A.: United
Nations Development Programme, pp. 1–20.
URL:http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdro_1303_stewart.pdf.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.A.: Sage.
Third World Academy of Sciences (2004). Building scientific capacity: a TWAS
perspective.
URL:http://twas.org/sites/default/files/capbuildreport.pdf.
Trautmann, C. and Monjero, K. (2019). ‘Science centers in Africa’. Informal Learning
Review 154 (January/February), pp. 3–10.
Trench, B. (2008). ‘Towards an analytical framework of science communication
models’. In: Communicating science in social contexts. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer, pp. 119–135.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7.
UNESCO (2020). Africa department — demographic growth.
URL:http://www.unesco.org/new/en/testing/africa-relaunch/priority-a
frica/operational-strategy/demographic-growth/ (visited on 28th January
2020).
United Nations (2019). Sustainable development goals.
URL:https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (visited on 13th August
2019).
United Nations Economic and Social Council (2006). Definition of basic concepts and
terminologies in governance and public administration.
URL:https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/566603.
Weiler, B. and Ham, S. H. (2002). ‘Tour guide training: a model for sustainable
capacity building in developing countries’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 (1),
pp. 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667152.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 20
Authors Graham J. Walker. Graham’s current research and engagement investigates
international capacity building and co-design in science communication. To this
end, he founded the Science Circus Africa project which has trained 499 staff and
reached 73,000 people in 10 countries. He is currently developing Science Circus
Pacific. Graham also researches psychological aspects of science communication,
particularly in settings like science centres, science shows and hands-on
workshops, and using these methods to engage with social and environmental
issues. He also teaches in these areas. E-mail: g.walker@anu.edu.au.
Leapotswe Bantsi. Leapotswe is currently involved with the “engagement for
development” programs of the Botswana International University of Science and
Technology (BIUST) which include science circuses, STEM festivals, mentorship of
pre-tertiary learners and others. While coordinating these programs, her other
major interest is demonstrating the relevance of Inquiry Based Science Education as
a necessary imperative for a country that aims to transit from a resource-based to
knowledge-based economy. Leapotswe is working to establish Botswana’s first
science centre. E-mail: bantsil@biust.ac.bw.
Siphesihle Bukhosini. Siphesihle is a scientist with a passion for science
communication to both the old and the young with a focus on making scientific
research accessible to all. Through strategic planning and development as well as
keen understanding of science, Siphesihle has mentored more than 10 individuals
in the field of science communication, promoted development and growth of two
science centres in remote South Africa, whilst impacting the lives of the
community. E-mail: Siphesihlebukh@gmail.com.
Knowledge Chikundi. Knowledge Chikundi is the founder Africa Science Buskers
Festival, which is Africa’s only international science communication platform for
primary and high school students and teachers. The Africa Science Buskers Festival
was inspired by the impact of Science Circus Africa in Zimbabwe. He is also
Director of the Zimbabwe Science Fair, an educational platform that offers
Zimbabwe’s passionate young scientists and innovators the opportunity to learn,
connect and solve humanity’s grand challenges. He regularly leads student
delegations to international competitions. E-mail: knowledge@sciencebuskers.org.
Akash Dusrath. Akash currently manages the Cape Town Science Centre
overseeing the organization’s operations and activities. He has a decade of
experience in science communication having worked in three science centres in
South Africa promoting both learner and public understanding of STEM through
interactive and engaging hands-on workshops, science shows, exhibits and events.
He serves as the Deputy Chairman of the Southern African Association of Science
and Technology Centres (SAASTEC) and is a member on the Accreditation
Committee for the South African Network of Science Centres.
E-mail: akashdusrath@gmail.com.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 21
Martin Kafeero. Martin is a science communicator from Uganda, where he is well
known through TV and other mediums as a funny and engaging science performer.
Over his working experience of seven years in the field, Martin has been involved
in the development of science outreach programs and other initiatives in Tanzania
and Uganda. He has reached out to more than 200,000 youth and children with
hands-on activities through school science shows, science festivals, theatre shows,
television, print media and non-science events.
E-mail: martin.martinka2018@gmail.com.
Bhamini Kamudu Applasawmy. Bhamini specializes in development and
implementation of science communication programs such as science shows,
competitions and teacher training workshops. She has championed several projects
including the YMPP which teaches students to address the Sustainable
Development Goals from a strategic planning perspective. The program won
national and international awards in Quality Circles Conventions for innovation in
delivery. She is a recipient of the Australian Award Fellowship in science
communication. Her research area is interest and learning in informal science
learning environments. E-mail: kamudu.rgsc@gmail.com.
Kenneth Monjero Igadwa. Kenneth Monjero is a research assistant at the Kenya
Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, where he works on
biotechnology tools, vaccines, viruses and crop research. He is also the pioneer and
founder of Science Centre Kenya, where he practices science communication. He is
a global fellow for food security with academic credentials from Kenya Methodist
University, University of Nairobi, Stellenbosch University, Cornell University,
North West University and Australia National University. Monjero’s passion is
children, youth and public STEM communication. E-mail: kentrizakari@gmail.com.
Kabelo Moswetsi. Kabelo ‘Nick’ Moswetsi is working as Chief
Coordinator — Programmes Development in the Directorate of Pre-University
Academic Programmes, Botswana International University of Science and
Technology (BIUST). In addition to developing outreach and engagement
programs he also organises outreach activities like STEM festivals, science circuses
and National Science Week. He is a master teacher of physics with many years of
teaching in Botswana Secondary Schools. He has also served as a Principal
Education Officer for science in the Ministry of Education Botswana.
E-mail: moswetsik@biust.ac.bw.
Sandile Rikhotso. Sandile Rikhotso is Lab Technician and program coordinator at
University of Limpopo Science Centre. He’s been developing, managing and
coordinating science communication program and projects for 13 years to date. He
assists in the development of a science communication qualification at the
university and also assists in the management of the science centre. He is a
post-graduate marketing student; his research area of interest is science centre
marketing. E-mail: Sandilebuwazi85@gmail.com.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 22
Marthinus J. Schwartz. MJ Schwartz is the Education Manager for the Cape Town
Science Centre. He has 10 years’ experience working in science communication and
informal education. He holds a BSc in physics and chemistry, an honours degree in
physics, a short course qualification in science communication, an Australia
Awards Fellowship in science centre management and is completing his Master
(astronomy) through the University of Cape (part-time). He is currently involved
in a pan-African project focusing on educational conservation in several African
countries. E-mail: mj.scienceguy@gmail.com.
Puleng Tsie. Puleng Tsie is an environmentalist turned science communicator. She’s
currently the Manager of Sci-Enza, the science centre of the University of Pretoria.
She is a recipient of the Australian Award Fellowship in Science Communication
and a former South African Association of Science and Technology Centres
(SAASTEC) board member. E-mail: puleng.tsie@up.ac.za.
Walker, G. J., Bantsi, L., Bukhosini, S., Chikundi, K., Dusrath, A., Kafeero, M.,How to cite
Kamudu Applasawmy, B., Monjero Igadwa, K., Moswetsi, K., Rikhotso, S.,
Schwartz, M. J. and Tsie, P. (2020). ‘Models to build capacity for African science
centres and science communication: needs and assets’. JCOM 19 (01), A05.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205.
c
The Author(s). This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution — NonCommercial — NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.
ISSN 1824-2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. jcom.sissa.it
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010205 JCOM 19(01)(2020)A05 23
