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

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.

TheDeepSouthChallenge

http://www.deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/

EngagementProgramme:bigpicture

1.InformingResearchPriorities

2.Sharing&useofinformation

3.Capabilitybuilding

4.Democraticprocesses

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

Butwhatdoesthisactuallylooklike?

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


KnowledgeTransferAim Nature Emphasis Model

Knowledgetransfer

Onewaytransfer


• NewZealandGeographicfeaturearticle• Websiteandnewsupdates• E-newsletter• Radiointerviews&podcasts• Newsarticles• Infographic• Reports

KnowledgeTransfer

Often(unfairly)referredtoastheDEFICITMODEL

Basedonassumptionthatthepublichavea‘deficit’ofknowledge,andthiscanberemediedthroughmoresciencecommunication

……notahelpfulframeworkforcommunicationofcontroversialissues!!


Knowledgetransfer

Onewaytransfer


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.


Vaccinationstory(ScientificAmerican)

ho

Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?

Perceivedrisk

Scienceliteracy/numeracy

Perceivedrisk


Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?PREDICTION

Howmuchriskdoyoubelieveclimatechangeposestohumanhealth,safetyorprosperity?PREDICTIONvs RESULTS

Perceivedrisk

Scienceliteracy/numeracyPerceivedrisk


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


Knowledgetransfer

Onewaytransfer


Knowledgesharing*



Knowledgebuilding*


ContentandContext


*Tosupportsoundandeffectivedecision-making

KnowledgeSharing

Eg.Sciencecafes,stakeholdermeetings,workshops,games

- issuesmaybepolitical,havepublicimpact- potentialcontroversy- impactshealth,food,safety,biodiversity,economy- expertsmayappeartodisagree- usefulforexploringcommunicationofriskanduncertainty


Knowledgesharing

Twowaynegotiation,dialogue


KnowledgeSharingAim Nature Emphasis Model

Knowledgesharing



• Workshops(ClimateChangeImpactsandImplications)• Paneldiscussionsassociatedwithevents• Socialmediadiscussions(JamieCurry)• SupportingPartnershipDirector• Stakeholdermeetings• Fundingdevelopmentofagame

KnowledgeBuilding

Eg.Consensusconference,hackathons,citizen/participatoryscience,co-creation/co-productionworkshops

- Researchofpublicinterest- Researchagendacanbenegotiated


Knowledgebuilding


ContentandContext


KnowledgeBuildingAim Nature Emphasis Model

Knowledgebuilding


ContentandContext


• DeepSouthDialogues– andassociatedresearchfunding• Stakeholderworkshops(researchagenda)• CitizenScience– Weather@Home• RepresentativeUserGroup• PartnershipDirector– feedingbackresearchpriorities• Funding engagementresearchwithcitizenpanels• Capacity-buildingopportunities

Image: @bryanMMathers

Image: @bryanMMathers

…buttherearethingstokeepinmind

…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.

[email protected]

science communication theory in the real world - envirolink · science communication theory in the...

Documents