Science Communication Theory in the real world - Envirolink · Science Communication Theory in the...
Transcript of Science Communication Theory in the real world - Envirolink · Science Communication Theory in the...
ScienceCommunicationTheoryintherealworld
Dr RhianSalmonScienceinSocietygroup,
VictoriaUniversityofWellington
EngagementProgramme Lead,DeepSouthNationalScienceChallenge
”SCIENCE”Manyperspectivesanddefinitions
AmethodofinquiryBodyofknowledgeExpertiseFactsQuestionsProcess
SectorofeconomyAprofessionInstitutionsFundingsystem
AwayoflookingattheworldAwesternknowledgebaseCultureAnarrative/discourseSocietalcreation
BigPharmaUntrustworthy/suspiciousOpaquePowerful
It’simportanttobeawareofwhatOTHERpeoplethinkofas“scienceandtechnology”andindividualsciencetopics
Scienceisdonebypeople
Andthereforeisinfluencedbymanyfactors:
PoliticalInstitutionalCulturalEconomic…
“thesciencethatgetsdoneisthesciencethatgetsfunded”
Envirolink grants
Envirolink: acouncil-managedknowledgetransferschemedesignedtoincreasetheamountof“techtransfer”fromgovernment-fundedenvironmentalresearchtocouncils.
(Mostly)CRIs
(Mostly)Universities
WhatisthepurposeofScienceCommunication?
Fromtheperspectiveof• Scientists• Media(journalists)• Differentmembersofthepublic• Councils??
★ social responsibility
★ encourage public engagement with science
★ inspire a next generation of scientists
★ increase scientific literacy
★ justify public funding
★ support communication & education professionals
★ because its inherently rewarding and fun
★ “because it’s a good thing to do”
Why scientists get involved in education,outreach, & public engagement?
★ Increase funding (public and private)
★ reach politicians through public support (votes)
★ attract students (recruitment)
★ have political influence
★ ego
★ visibility for your research / yourself / your group (marketing)
★ commercial interests
Why scientists get involved in education,outreach, & public engagement?
Whatisthepurposeofsciencecommunication?
Fromtheperspectiveof• Scientists• Media(journalists)• Differentmembersofthepublic• Councils?
Whatisthepurposeofsciencecommunication?
Fromtheperspectiveof• Scientists• Media(journalists)• Differentmembersofthepublic• Councils?
democracy
Whycommunicatescience?…therearesixprincipalobjectivesthatmotivatepeopleandorganisations todevelopactivitiestocommunicatescience.Theseare:
• Topromoteanawarenessofscienceas“partofthefabricofsociety”
• Topromoteanindividualorganisation• Publicaccountability• Torecruitthenextgenerationofscientistsandengineers• Togainacceptanceofscienceandnewtechnologies;and• Tosupportsoundandeffectivedecision-making
Traditionallyaddressedwithalinearapproach
TheDeepSouthNationalScienceChallenge
Mission:toenableNewZealanderstoadapt,managerisk,andthriveinachangingclimate.
ArticulationinanEngagement Strategy
ChallengeMission:ThisChallengewillenableNewZealanderstoadapt,managerisk,andthriveinachangingclimate.
EngagementGoal:toimproveNewZealanders’abilityandcapacitytomakedecisionsinformedbyclimatechangescience.
EngagementGoal:toimproveNewZealanders’abilityandcapacitytomakedecisionsinformedbyclimatechangescience.
1. Ensuring researchresponds toNewZealanders’needs2. Publiccommunicationand2-wayengagementtohelpinformclimate-relateddecisions3. Workingwithkeysectorstoenablemoreinformed decision-making4. Providing trainingandsupport inclimatechangeengagement5. Providing Challengeupdatesandinformation6. Evaluationandresearch
Thisisbrokendownintosixobjectives:
….whichisdelivered(practically)through fourworkstreams:
1. BroadandInternalEngagement2. TailoredEngagement3. Capacitybuilding (training) inengagement4. Evaluationandresearch
Alotofresearchhasoccurredinthisarea– overthelastfortyyearstherehasbeenatransitionfrom
Knowledgetransfer(Wynne2005,Irwin2006,Trench2008,Pouliot 2009)
Knowledgesharing(Jackson,Barbagello &Haste,2006Benneworth 2009)
Knowledgebuilding(Joly &Kaufman2008,Williams2010)
Transfer– sharing- buildingAim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgetransfer
Onewaytransfer
Content DeficitDiffusion
Knowledgesharing
Twowaynegotiation,consultation
Context DialogueDemocracy
Knowledgebuilding
Knowledgeco-production,multi-directional
ContentandContext
ParticipationEngagement
KnowledgeTransfer
LINEARMODELSAppropriateforsimple,non-politicalissueswithcommonframeworks,andnorequiredchangeinvalues,attitudes,behaviour
- Norequiredaction- Littlecontroversy- Basedoncommonlyunderstoodprinciplesandlaws
Aim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgetransfer
Onewaytransfer
Content DeficitDiffusion
KnowledgeTransferAim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgetransfer
Onewaytransfer
Content DeficitDiffusion
• NewZealandGeographicfeaturearticle• Websiteandnewsupdates• E-newsletter• Radiointerviews&podcasts• Newsarticles• Infographic• Reports
KnowledgeTransfer
Often(unfairly)referredtoastheDEFICITMODEL
Basedonassumptionthatthepublichavea‘deficit’ofknowledge,andthiscanberemediedthroughmoresciencecommunication
……notahelpfulframeworkforcommunicationofcontroversialissues!!
Aim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgetransfer
Onewaytransfer
Content DeficitDiffusion
Deficitmodel;example1
Sir— Public hostility towards biotechnol-ogies is frequently attributed to lack ofinformation, due to poor and insufficientmedia coverage. For this reason, scientificresearchers and policy-makers often callfor journalists to give more attention toscientific issues, for better informationcampaigns and for more communicationof science, to improve generalunderstanding and thereby lead to greaterpublic support for biotechnologies andother innovations. But is this approachcorrect?
In 2000 and 2001, with partial supportfrom the Giannino Bassetti Foundation,we carried out two surveys of Italianpublic opinion. These were specifically to analyse the relationships betweenexposure to science in the media,information on biotechnologies, trust inscience, and attitudes to biotechnologies. A representative sample of 1,022 Italiancitizens aged over 18 were interviewed by phone in September 2000; anotherrepresentative sample of 1,017 citizenswere interviewed in November 2001.Some questions were identical for the twogroups, others were year-specific. (A copyof the full list of questions used in thesurvey and the percentage response ratesis available from M.B.)
Respondents were asked about theirlevel of exposure to science in specifieddaily newspapers, television and radioscience programmes, popular sciencebooks and magazines. We used questionssimilar to those of 1999 Eurobarometer(see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf), but also askedadditional ones about trust in science andscientists, and the use, risks and moralacceptability of biotechnologies.
Our results confirm previoussuspicions that exposure to informationdoes not always lead to greater trust inbiotechnologies. We also find that greaterexposure to science in the media does notnecessarily mean a higher level ofunderstanding. The proportion of subjectswho think “only genetically modifiedtomatoes contain genes while ordinarytomatoes don’t”, for example, is almostidentical among those with high (29%)and low (31%) exposure to science in themedia. More than a quarter of the ‘regular’consumers of science in the media (28%)cannot give more than one correct answerto five questions about biotechnologies,and more than half (57%) cannot givemore than two correct answers.
High exposure to science in the mediadoes not significantly reduce opposition to
applications such as “taking genes fromplant species and transferring them intocrop plants, to make them more resistantto insect pests” or “introducing humangenes into animals to produce organs forhuman transplants, such as into pigs forhuman heart transplants”. But it doesresult in greater criticism for someapplications: 64% of the most exposedsubjects consider embryo research to beethically unacceptable compared with 59%of the less exposed, and 80% of regularconsumers of science in the mediaconsider reproductive cloning uselesscompared with 76% of low consumers.
Of course, media exposure to sciencedoes not guarantee accurate information;indeed, there are frequent complaints aboutthe quality of science coverage by the massmedia. People who are exposed to at leastone high-quality source of publiccommunication of science (for example, the Italian edition of Scientific American)are more likely to have a positive attitude to biotechnologies. Yet this result merelyhighlights a well-known paradox in thecommunication of science: the greatestimpact is on a small minority, who are mostlikely to have the information already.
A high level of information does notguarantee a positive attitude: 49% of thebetter-informed respondents think thattransferring genes into fruit or vegetablesis useless, and 54% think it is risky.Embryo research fares poorly (60% inboth groups consider it unacceptable),
whereas cloning for reproductive purposesis even more severely judged by the betterinformed than by the less well informed.
A higher level of information isassociated with the desire for stricter stateregulation of biotechnologies, as well aswith the belief that regulation should notbe left either to companies or to scientistsalone. The better informed are also morelikely to trust consumers’ organizationsand scientific institutions more thanpotential beneficiaries (such as patients’groups) and, sometimes, governmentinstitutions.
If media exposure to science does notaccount for different attitudes to biotech-nologies, what does? Attitudes appear to be rooted at a deeper, cultural level wherevalues (such as trust and conception ofrisk) are heavily involved and mediainformation does not reach. Publicawareness of biotechnologies is increasingand the level of education seems to be moreimportant than other factors in explainingattitudes in this area. So it may be wise torecommend that at least as much attentionis devoted to science education — both interms of research and of programmes andinvestments — as to the mass-mediacommunication of science.Massimiano Bucchi*, Federico Neresini† *Department of Social Sciences, University ofTrento, via Verdi 26 - 38100, Trento, Italye-mail: [email protected]†Department of Sociology, University of Padova,via S. Canziano 8, 35122 Padova, Italy
correspondence
NATURE | VOL 416 | 21 MARCH 2002| www.nature.com 261
Biotech remains unloved by the more informedTh e m e d ia m ay b e provid in g th e m e ssa g e — b ut is a nyo n e h e e d in g th e c a ll?
Nothing automatic aboution-channel structuresSir— My colleagues and I were shocked to read your News report “Proteinchemists favour automatic answers” (ref. 1) in which the chloride ion channelwas featured prominently as an example of an important protein structuredetermined with the help of high-throughput techniques. In the report, Neil Isaacs of Glasgow University is quotedas saying that the chloride ion-channelstructure “could not have been donewithout automation”.
In fact, we used no automation or high-throughput methods to solve thechloride-channel structure2. Indeed, high-throughput methods have played no part in any of the difficult ion-channelstructure determinations completed in mylaboratory3–5. Our success has rested solely
on the intense focus, hard work andthoughtful approach of a small group ofscientists intent on solving an importantproblem in biological chemistry.
I do not wish to join the debate over the wisdom of funding robotic structuralbiology in the United Kingdom. I do,however, wish to set the record straightconcerning a misrepresentation of thescience carried out in my own laboratory.The explanation for why we have made
Chloride ion channel: structure solved bytraditional science.
© 2002 Macmillan Magazines Ltd
Bucchi,M.,&Neresini,F.(2002).Biotechremainsunlovedbythemoreinformed.Nature,416,261–261.
ho
Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?
Perceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracy
Perceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracy
Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?PREDICTION
Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?PREDICTIONvs RESULTS
Perceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracyPerceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracy
Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?PREDICTIONvs RESULTS
Perceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracyPerceivedrisk
Scienceliteracy/numeracy
Deficitmodel- summarised
Embeddedassumptioninscienceestablishmentthatmoreknowledgetomorepublicsources=moreacceptance
Socialscienceresearchshowsveryclearlythatthere’snonecessarycausalprogressionfrommoreknowledgetomoreacceptance
Infact,moreknowledgeoftenleadstomoreskepticism,moreambivalence,andsometimesoutrightopposition,
Typesofcommunication1.Consensual,non-problematic,informativeE.g.NationalGeographic,NewScientist,Radiolab,ScientificAmerican…
2.publiccommunicationinfluencesthescienceE.g.Ozonehole,GMOs,UNFCCclimate
change meetings,sciencefunding– requiresamore sophisticatedpublic$$
Whycommunicatescience?…therearesixprincipalobjectivesthatmotivatepeopleandorganisations todevelopactivitiestocommunicatescience.Theseare:
• Topromoteanawarenessofscienceas“partofthefabricofsociety”
• Topromoteanindividualorganisation• Publicaccountability• Torecruitthenextgenerationofscientistsandengineers• Togainacceptanceofscienceandnewtechnologies;and• Tosupportsoundandeffectivedecision-making
Traditionallyaddressedwithalinearapproach
Transfer– sharing- building
Aim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgetransfer
Onewaytransfer
Content DeficitDiffusion
Knowledgesharing*
Twowaynegotiation,consultation
Context DialogueDemocracy
Knowledgebuilding*
Knowledgeco-production,multi-directional
ContentandContext
ParticipationEngagement
*Tosupportsoundandeffectivedecision-making
KnowledgeSharing
Eg.Sciencecafes,stakeholdermeetings,workshops,games
- issuesmaybepolitical,havepublicimpact- potentialcontroversy- impactshealth,food,safety,biodiversity,economy- expertsmayappeartodisagree- usefulforexploringcommunicationofriskanduncertainty
Aim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgesharing
Twowaynegotiation,dialogue
Context DialogueDemocracy
KnowledgeSharingAim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgesharing
Twowaynegotiation,consultation
Context DialogueDemocracy
• Workshops(ClimateChangeImpactsandImplications)• Paneldiscussionsassociatedwithevents• Socialmediadiscussions(JamieCurry)• SupportingPartnershipDirector• Stakeholdermeetings• Fundingdevelopmentofagame
KnowledgeBuilding
Eg.Consensusconference,hackathons,citizen/participatoryscience,co-creation/co-productionworkshops
- Researchofpublicinterest- Researchagendacanbenegotiated
Aim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgebuilding
Knowledgeco-production,multi-directional
ContentandContext
ParticipationEngagement
KnowledgeBuildingAim Nature Emphasis Model
Knowledgebuilding
Knowledgeco-production,multi-directional
ContentandContext
ParticipationEngagement
• DeepSouthDialogues– andassociatedresearchfunding• Stakeholderworkshops(researchagenda)• CitizenScience– Weather@Home• RepresentativeUserGroup• PartnershipDirector– feedingbackresearchpriorities• Funding engagementresearchwithcitizenpanels• Capacity-buildingopportunities
…ScienceinSocietygroup• UndergraduateMinorinScienceinSociety• NewMaster’sinScienceinSociety
• StartingMarch2018• Opportunitiesforinternships• Focusedontheoryandpractice• Fulltime(1-year)orparttime(3-years)
• IndividualCourses,WorkshopsandPresentations• CommunicatingControversialSciences• ClimateScienceandDecision-making• ScienceCommunication• ScienceWriting
• ResearchintoPublicEngagement• Theoretically-groundedengagementactivities• Engagementstrategies(climatechange,conservation,water
quality,datacomplexity)• Consulting,judging,critiquing
Practicalwayswe’dliketoworkwithyou:
• Funding/Support availableforEngagementactivitiesspecifictoyourcommunity/sector/region
• DSCExpertiseavailable– eg atconferences,workshops,symposia,forone-oneonemeetings
• CapacityBuilding– more”climateambassadors”
Contact:SusanLivengood,[email protected]
TheDeepSouthNationalScienceChallenge
Mission:toenableNewZealanderstoadapt,managerisk,andthriveinachangingclimate.