It is an extremely important skill to have especially, as I see you have placed the question under conservation topics. Conservation science is commonly seen as holding back development, and depriving livelihoods. More often than not, the scientist needs to explain conservation methods, and the concept of long-term stability vs short-term windfalls/gains. It is also important in human-wildlife conflict, where settlements push against wild habitats. People want to cull wildlife coming out, and governments can be under pressure to do so or face large costs in supporting livelihoods being raided time and again. Here the conservation scientist needs to work with both government as well as the farmers.

”How important is it for scientists to have the ability to communicate with all levels of the community?”

if he/she is paid 100% from the state budget (e.g. workers from museums and universities) than it is of no importance the communication with members of local communities

p.s. because they are anyway paid, no matter if they are doing something worthwhile or not...

So Sandi,

As I told you, nice to have a topic to discuss this.

Personally I work teaching since I was 14, Yes! Long time!

What I could see is: the way that you use to do it for each age, each level or propose of education (formal or informal) and especially the treat you use with people makes all the difference.

Working in environmental field since I was 18 and not only in Academia, what I saw is... even the best scientist do a better job when he/she is able to talk and hear different people. You get better information and better answers and so you make the difference to build a better society; more equal and with better understanding.

Once I saw a very honored anthropologist trying to apply some pols and questionnaires in a traditional community to try to evaluate the impacts of a new project. But even with all the certificates on her wall, she was just not getting answer.

Nobody talks to her. She just don't knew how to approach them and gain the confidence to start any kind of talk... and in some Universities they just don't teach this for some degrees.

Or even if they did... some people are just not the best to do that kind of job. Being Scientist or not...

What a sad thing a scientist unable to collect their own data... because of a lack of communication skill.

Unfortunately, after 40's we notice that Communication can be improved, for sure... but there are also an inherent ability ... so there are people who just was born more capable to develop it and some that will have a harder time working on this.

Actually I am researching about conflict prevention and resolution. You see different interests "on the table" and the conflicts that usually comes up.

I strongly agree that we must to have more people able to translate the different languages we talk on that table... and sure scientists more able to communicate with laymen.

I co-founded once a network to try to improve the sanitation service in my country. The quality of public service delivered in water supply.

It was very interesting because we were trying to put out of the shelves all that thesis and researches, publications... and apply them really!

But so... what a shame... the scientists discovered why their so nice papers doesn't turn in better practices... the guys who effectively "know how" by doing the job... sometimes don't know even to read... and unfortunately it happens in lots of countries.

So, to complete the goals of the project (which is so long to describe here) our scientists were humble enough to assume that they were needing to learn again... learn how to communicate with the laymen...

and in this teach-learn-teach experience ... many new technologies and many new solutions just pop-up from both sides... and we from the government were just facilitating that process and give a better use for the money that the private sector produce. (Unfortunately money for research don't just appear in your pocket... someone is always paying you... govern, NGO's, private sector... doesn't matter. The difference is how you do your research and how your payer influence the results.)

Most of my job nowadays is to try to guarantee that people have access to better information... but much more... think about (in their own way) and know how to add this information to their previous knowledge for a better decision making process where they can participate in a more fair position.

In my view, Academia and Science has a key role to play in this game, but must to be sited in the right chair and deliver the best they can all the scientific information they were paid to produce; in order to help a better base for the decision process.

What we can't anymore is to have tons of specialized knowledge that don't go out of the computers or very specific publications... that are not able to change things "on the street" in the world outside of offices... we need to spread the hard work that has been done everywhere by scientists. But we need also to be humble enough to know that is not all that matters if you can't produce nothing good with this.

Share really what you know and hear what you probably don't is the best way for any human-being make not only their work... but their breath worthwhile... in any job or position.

Yes, Good Communication is the key ... for many things!

In principle I have to say "Yes, it is very important". But being less impulsive the answer is not so obvious. A good scientist has to be, first of all, a good scientist. Write projects, manage, analyze results, produce new knowledge, educate young scientists, this is the job of a researcher. Complex and difficult enough, requiring lot of time and full concentration. Communication is another job. Ideally the research team has to be composed by different skills: the scientists and the extension dedicated people, working close each other, in strict collaboration. Good examples are given by extension services in agriculture in the US, Australia and other countries.

Scientists with communication abilities have a higher possibility to "sell" their results, findings or concepts. The art of communication is a valuable soft skill sometimes more important than any hard skill.

this can have the effect of educating and propaging knowledge on his own subject, the scientist can test how his research are perceived by the population..

in addition the population can be very usefull, because they are litterally all over the region and so they can see everyday evolution on their environment and draw your attention on theses problems (and so they can actually help you in yours research)

This can also bring popular support to some scientific projet, or some environmental goal..

A scientist to be successful needs to have technical,administrative,teaching,communicative & extension skills.It is sometimes hard nut to crack when dealing with lowly educated or illiterate fishermen,especially on conservation aspects.Unless all the tricks of the trade of a scientist are employed,failure could be more of a probability.

Scientists have to "manage up and manage down" by communicating clearly with their supervisors and peers (or their grant applications won't be funded) and with their students and staff. So effective scientists already have the ability to adjust the level of communication up or down within the context of their work and professional jargon. Science managers also have to learn to communicate with decision-makers, such as legislators and government officials. Ideally, every scientist should be able to talk to "real people" and communicate scientific ideas, but this is not reasonable. It is both a talent and a learned skill and not everyone can do it.

Being able to go beyond jargon and speak directly to the community is a learned skill, like any other. It requires "un-learning" professional jargon, while retaining the ability to use the vocabulary of your peers with ease, and relearning natural language, which requires paying attention to how the public talks and to popular culture. This is useful for all scientists and critical for those, such as environmental scientists, who must communicate with the public on issues of risk and what it means to people's lives, often with a public that is not scientifically literate and has preconceived ideas.

Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, or someone else is supposed to have said: "If you can't explain your work to a six-year old, you don't understand it well enough." or something like that, altho maybe not a six-year old. The record of who said it is completely unclear, but the basic idea is still true.

Not every scientist can do this. Most scientists can do it if they try but it requires effort. But some scientists can do it very well and easily. They are natural spokespersons who can represent research groups and scientific organizations. We depend on them to keep lines of communication open with the public.

Yes this is true. I was a Project Director of World Bank funded 75 million US $ project. I have done lots of community project you can refer from three of my data sets in RG regarding cash for work, post conflict development strategies ..etc

From my point of view it is clear: Yes.

Different reasons are bringing me to this point.

First of all: What is the reason you doing science? I liked to answer: Generating well suited information. But unmentioned information’s are useless, so communication is a core skill of any scientist. Otherwise you are just sitting in the famous ivory tower without any relationship with the real world outside.

So even every basic research has to find answers on the question what is the benefit of your work for the society. I would like to conclude this point with the responsibility of any researcher to communicate the best knowledge human being have at a time so people have no need to use or believe in obscurantism and mysticism. It is a point of enlightenment and maybe empowerment of people to forming the world on the basis of best available knowledge.

Than the question of the salary: I beg your pardon but I hardly disagree with Zsolt Török. If you are funded by public money the question what will the public got back for their money is important in particular. So, especially public funded research has the duty to generate useful results, in an applied manner and with a benefit for the society.

At least there is a point I liked to call it intradisziplinarity. That means if you are really interested to give answers to important questions of a modern and increasing complex world and to deliver contributions to solve their actual problems you can´t really be successful in a mono disciplinary approach. You have to integrate different knowledge basis’s. First step is to integrate different scientific disciplines. A second step is to integrate non-scientific knowledge as well. I guess for most questions you have to integrate practice knowledge. I my personal experience with technology science it is very important to take the perspective of the technology user in to account, because technologies especially green tech like renewable energy can´t roll out without social acceptance. And like Shun Fam pointed out, conservation science looks very similar on that issue.

At least for me personally it would be a form of arrogance not to be willing to explain the own research work to a non-expert. My experience is that teaching and explaining the own work to outsiders is very helpful for proofing my own thoughts. So communication and reflection is a main part of the scientific method.

And at very least: If researcher communicates only with researcher eventually even only with researcher from their own discipline the risk is high that possible abuse of scientific results will be ignored. That leading back to the question about the responsibility of scientists for their research results. The history of science know plenty examples where the missing of this responsibility leading to painful disaster with huge damages. Communication have the potential to avoid that.

Your scientific knowledge is worth nothing unless you can communicate it with others. Including the public.

There is also the aspect of quality and balance of the content. Something rarely seen in, for instance, climate change science or radiation protection issues when communicating with the public.