Objectifs :
a. Understanding knowledge systems (differences between scientific knowledge, traditional knowledge, local knowledge, non-academic knowledge, political knowledge, etc.…). The example of Brazil’s disregard of environmental science when creating laws.
b. A brief history of scientific knowledge… and why science is often seen as an “ivory tower”.
c. What is co-learning? And what is knowledge co-production? Examples of co-learning and citizen science in Europe, Africa, and South America.
d. Why are scientists often ignored by policy makers? Do companies listen to science?
e. About conflict and mediation: is conflict always negative? What mediation can do (and what it cannot!)
f. What is a scientific controversy and how to recognize its main elements? (Controversy issues, actors, clashing interests and values, context, and backgrounds).
g. Can anyone be a scientific mediator? (Theoretical presentation of the different modes and media of scientific mediation, personal and professional characteristics of a good mediator).
h. What is scientific mediation and how can it contribute to more evidence-based decision-making in a context of increasing obscurantism and fake news?
i. Different objectives and types of scientific mediation
j. The steps and stages of scientific mediation processes.
k. Group reflection about scientific mediation as a tool for students’ daily lives.

Programme :
The course will provide the basic concepts and skills for effectively communicating research results to the public, especially orally, in a neutral way. It will also help students to positively overcome natural conflicts arising from frequent scientific controversies and from clashing ways of seeing and understanding the world (different knowledge systems and interests). It will, above all, identify ways to increase science-society-policy interactions and to generate impactful science between academic and non-academic actors, leading to positive transformations at different levels.
Description and pedagogical expectations:
The course will address at least the following key questions (course axes):
A - What to do when scientists strongly disagree about the same issue? (Mediation between scientists; scientific controversies)
B - What if society ignores science? (Combatting scientific mis and disinformation; mediation with the public)
C - How to make a complex scientific subject accessible and attractive to non-academic or non-expert actors? (Successful science-society-policy dialogue)

Pré-requis :
the course is open to PhD candidates from all disciplines and professional backgrounds. Fluency in English is a must.

Méthode pédagogique :
Each course will be very practical, dynamic, and interactive, with 50% of the time devoted to sharing theoretical elements of scientific mediation, and the rest of the time devoted to practical exercises, including the World Café technique and role playing.
The course will thus combine a solid conceptual background along with concrete science mediation examples which will be selected in a participatory manner, and according to the students’ interests and field of research. For instance, GMO food controversies maybe relevant for agronomy or health students; climate change negationism can be proposed to earth science, psychology, and/or public policy students; climate justice or the rights to intellectual properties of indigenous communities maybe relevant for students of anthropology or law, and so on). For every concrete case, the professor can display concrete experiences extracted from her more than 20 years of experience regarding food, the environment and human health in a context of climate change, in Europe and the Global South. Regarding specific mediation methods, each relevant mediation concept will be first described and discussed according to both classical and cutting-edge literature, and, in the afternoon, a concrete, illustrative situation will be “scenarised” with the help of student volunteers.
Practical activity example: Regarding the concrete issue of “scientific controversies”, pairs of students can be invited to perform as scientists with clashing views (role playing and other participatory techniques). For example, Scientist A will be invited to express one specific point of view about GMOs food or any other chosen controversy. Scientist B (student volunteer B) will be invited to express the opposite. Then with the help of a mediator (first the professor/ subsequently a student volunteer), they will be invited to draft the main topics of a joint scientific paper or executive summary to advise a government agency or organization (science-policy dialogue). Students can then write a joint paper where they state the areas they agree on in order to narrow down the dispute, the fundamental points that they disagree about, and then – as one of the core results of scientific mediation – students will have to agree on why they disagree. It will be explained that the parts are not obliged to agree on the merits, but they must agree on the reasons why they disagree on a certain scientific issue. And in doing that, with the help of a mediator, participants will begin to understand each other’s position and what happens is that their personal biases (values, world visions, beliefs, prejudices, etc.) surface.
Students will be invited to reflect (for instance, through a World Café workshop) on the fact that scientists are often are taking opposite sides because they are filling in knowledge gaps with their own personal biases and their political opinions. By making those personal views and biases explicit (and without leading to confrontation), students will be able to explain in a clear way to non-academic actors, including government agencies or international organizations, what the real scientific controversy is about, and how it can be scientifically approached.

Compétences acquises à l'issue de la formation :
At the end of the course, students should be able to:
- Cleary understand and define the different methods and stages of scientific mediation.
- Air and positively address negative emotions, fears, and doubts with the goal of being effectively heard and understood when sharing scientific results to wider audiences, especially orally but also through other means (written, videos, the arts…).
- Identify the elements of specific scientific controversies and their elements (controversy issues, actors, clashing interests and values, context, and backgrounds) and to listen to criticism and complaints without becoming defensive.
- Increase their ability and disposition to brainstorm solutions that would satisfy all parties involved.
- Foster a welcoming environment where people of all backgrounds (academic and non-academic) feel comfortable so as conflict can be positively managed.

La formation participe à l'objectif suivant :préparer le devenir professionnel des doctorants dans le secteur public comme dans le secteur privé