Critique Paper

The journal article aims to identify and understand the challenges of communicating
Science from the Philippines’ perspective. Authored by Kamila Navarro and Merryn McKinnon,
the journal article distinguishes the major challenges in a developing country by means of online
survey and semi-constructed, investigative interviews to scientist and science communicators
living in Manila, Philippines. As presupposed, the results indicated issues similar to international
studies of other developing countries. Some of the issues identified were surprisingly immense
within the Philippine context. These results suggest the authority to establish a strategic response
that apprehends the challenges of communicating Science.
The study was focused in identifying the issues and challenges faced by scientists and
science communicators in communicating science. however, based on my analysis, there are
some faults present in the methodology that somehow affects the quality of the result. First of
which is the scope of the study which covers the area of Manila only. Manila is the Capital of the
Philippines and majority of modern science institutions are present within the vicinity. The result
can’t be considered as the Philippines’ perspective if it only covers a small part of the country.
Second is the use of online surveys in gathering data. Philippines, being a developing
country, not everyone has the access to internet. The scope of study only covers those who has
access to internet and can actually respond to the survey. Though there were interviews
conducted, it can’t deny that fact of the initial scope was not completely covered.
Third is how the scope of the study covered a population with only a few cultures.
Philippines has a diverse culture that affects people’s perception to science. The results produced
was greatly influenced by only few cultures. It would have been better if the respondents
involved are members of different cultures to produce an accurate result that reveals the
challenges in communicating science.
However, the study conducted was still commendable as it presented a well-organized
discussion of results that highlights the major issues and challenges present in communicating
science. With both qualitative and quantitative results, the study was conducted with strategic
methods that intensifies the accuracy of the results. The study also included the educational
attainment of scientists and science communicators and how it is contributed to the challenges of
communicating science. The study presented varying issues such as low annual salary amongst
science communicators, Filipino’s diverse approach and perception to science, scarcity in terms
of accessibility in some parts of the country, and the absence of a well-constructed science
communication frameworks which proves how science communication went unnoticed and
underprivileged.
In my analysis, the study did a good job in identifying the major challenges faced by
scientists and science communicators. Though there are some varying factors that affects the
result, the study was still successful in identifying majority of the challenges present and
emphasized the most significant challenges amongst them. the study acknowledged the flaws
into their account and articulated the minor setbacks as recommendation to future researchers
who will conduct relevant studies.