Why one-size-fits-all science communication doesn’t work

What is it about?

This paper is about how science is communicated to the public, and why context matters more than we often acknowledge. Much research on science communication focuses on finding general rules or “best practices” that can be applied everywhere. While this approach has value, it can overlook something important: science communication always happens in specific places, among specific people, shaped by local histories, cultures, institutions, and even environments. To explore this, the paper introduces the idea of terroir as a way of thinking about science communication. The term comes from agriculture and is often used to describe how the taste of wine or food is shaped by where it is produced - including the soil, climate, traditions, and practices involved. The authors use this idea as a metaphor to suggest that science communication, too, is shaped by its surroundings. What works well in one context may not work in another, not because it is “wrong,” but because the conditions are different. The paper argues that good science communication is not only about delivering clear messages or following standard formats. It is also about cultivating relationships, trust, and meaning in ways that resonate locally. This includes paying attention to emotions, sensory experiences, values, and lived realities — aspects that are often difficult to capture with conventional evaluation methods. Overall, the paper invites readers to rethink what counts as “good evidence” and “good practice” in science communication. Instead of searching only for universal solutions, it suggests valuing science communication as a situated craft - something that is grown carefully within particular social, cultural, and environmental settings. This shift has implications for how science communication is designed, evaluated, and supported, especially when dealing with complex challenges such as sustainability and societal change.

Featured Image

Photo by Big Dodzy on Unsplash

Photo by Big Dodzy on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This work is timely because science communication is increasingly expected to help address urgent societal challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and technological transformation. In response, there has been a strong push to make science communication more “scientific” - by measuring audiences, testing messages, and evaluating what works using methods borrowed from the natural sciences. While this approach has produced valuable insights, it also brings important limitations that are rarely discussed. Much of what is now described as the science of science communication treats communication as something that can be broken down into separate parts, tested in controlled ways, and optimised for predictable outcomes. This way of thinking assumes that good communication can be designed, replicated, and applied across contexts if the right evidence is gathered. It reflects a broader scientific mindset that values general rules, standardisation, and universal solutions. What makes this paper different is that it challenges this assumption. Instead of asking how science communication can be controlled or optimised, it asks how communication actually takes shape in real settings - shaped by local cultures, histories, relationships, and environments. By introducing terroir as a guiding idea, the paper offers a language for understanding science communication as something grown within particular conditions, rather than engineered from the outside. This perspective is especially important today because many science-related issues are deeply value-laden, emotionally charged, and entangled with people’s identities and everyday lives. In such contexts, communication cannot simply be “rolled out” according to universal rules. It needs to be responsive, relational, and attentive to context. By foregrounding arts-based, co-creative, and place-sensitive approaches, this work opens up new ways of thinking about evidence, quality, and success in science communication. It invites readers to see science communication not only as a technical problem to be solved, but as a situated practice that requires care, judgment, and imagination. This shift has the potential to broaden who feels represented in science communication research - and to inspire more diverse, meaningful, and context-aware practices.

Perspectives