China 2016; Being strategic in science communication

transcript

Thinking about objectives and goals for science communicationJohn C. Besley, Ph.D. (Twitter: @johnbesley)Ellis N. Brandt ChairCollege of Communication Arts and Sciences

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

My objectives1. You will think about engagement as a strategic

act that involves purposeful choice of long-term goals and intermediate objectives.

2. You will think about engagement tactics and skills in terms of whether they can help you achieve your intermediate objectives.

Engagement is …

Face-to-face

Direct w/policy-makers

Online

Mediated

Numbers vary … but scientists clearly engage

• 63% interacted with a journalist in last yearDunwoody and Ryan, 1985

• 70% interacted with a journalist in last 3 yearsPeters, Brossard, de Cheveigné, Dunwoody, 2008

• 51% have ever interacted with journalistAAAS 2015

• 33% engaged directly with policy-makersRoyal Society 2006

• 24% blogged about scienceAAAS 2015

• 13% worked with a science center/museumRoyal Society 2006

*All work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas

Our new survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific Societies

Type of society N Rate n* Avg. Age Male White

General 1,257 8% 1,064 62 69% 90%

Microbiology* 1,111 14% 634** 53 54% 60%

Geophysical 1,013 10% 877** 50 65% 89%

Geological 2,304 10% 666 50 67% 92%

Chemical# 1,257 5% 374** 51 68% 86%

Ecological 732 11% 339 53 60% 93%* Respondents who are university affiliated and not a student and all societies except the ecological society received 4 contacts (they received 3 contacts), **Sample for some reported questions smaller because of sample splitting by engagement mode, # Survey still in progress

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Past Engagement previous 12 months (never) …

Type of society F2F News Online Policy

General 34% 45% 59% 58%

Microbiology 41% 54% 51% 70%

Geophysical 26% 38% 47% 59%

Geological 21% 41% 51% 62%

Chemical (TBD) 40% 62% 60% 77%

Ecological (TBD) 26% 38% 47% 59%

0.00-9.99

10.00-19.99

20.00-29.99

30.00-39.99

40.00-49.99

50.00-59.99

60.00-69.99

70.00-79.99

80.00-89.99

90.00-100.00 %

Many U.S. scientists engage, especially

face-to-face

Willingness to engage …

Type of society F2F Policy News Online

General 5.63 5.25 5.14 3.98Microbiology 5.81 5.32 5.05 4.57Geophysical 5.97 5.43 5.46 4.62Geological 5.97 5.17 5.23 4.25Chemical 5.38 4.64 4.58 4.20

Ecological 6.02 5.63 5.54 4.55

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists want to engage, especially face-to-face and

with policy makers

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …

Type of society Use Evidence

Culture Values

Better Personal

Research Funding

STEM Careers

Diversify STEM

General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00Chemical (TBD) 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03

Ecological (TBD) 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26• Getting policy makers to use scientific evidence• Helping ensure our culture values science• Helping people use science to make better personal

decisions• Obtaining adequate funding for scientific research• Getting more young people to choose scientific

careers• Helping to diversify the STEM workforce

Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …

Type of society Use Evidence

Value Science

Better Personal

Research Funding

STEM Careers

Diversify STEM

General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00Chemical 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03

Ecological 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists most want others to draw on evidence and

value science culture

Very similar results for other modalities (i.e. online,

media), when available

What happens if you get really good at communicating the wrong stuff?

I don’t mean bad content…

Most science communication training …• Focuses on writing/speaking skills• Focuses on honing YOUR message• Understanding media/political norms• Focuses on learning to use technology

What does it mean to be an “effective” communicator?

In strategic communication: Effective = Achieving Your Goals

What do scientists want to ULTIMATELY achieve through public engagement?

Most would say:• Raise awareness of XYX topic• Teach people about XYZ topic• Correct myths about XYZ topic

• Get people interested in XYZ topic• Build positive image of science

• Get people to think about XYZ topic in a new way

The may be good things … but I do not think of them as ULTIMATE goals …• Key question: Why do you

want to “raise awareness,” etc.

Very few people say:• Seek a specific policy position (e.g. climate action)

• Seek more funding for science• Seek more freedom for scientific endeavors

• Make the world healthier, wealthier, and wiser• Promote science as a career*

To me … these are the ULTIMATE goals(*this may be an intermediate objective)

Tactics, objectives, and goals

*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas

Scientists may/should also have personal

goals (enhance career and sense of impact)

Channels provide different

“affordances”

Not every objective is

equally effective …

Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …

Very similar results for mediated, and online engagement

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

DefendScience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame Issue

Show Values

Hear Others

Show Expert

General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90

Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31

• Helping to inform people about scientific issues• Getting people interested or excited about

science• Defending science from those who spread

falsehoods• Showing that the scientific community cares

about society's well-being• Demonstrating the scientific community's

openness and transparency• Framing research implications so members of the

public think about a topic in a way that resonates with their values

• Showing that scientists share community values• Hearing what others think about scientific issues• Showing the scientific community's expertise

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

Defendscience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame issue

Show values

Hear others

Show expert

Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Typical SE is between .05 and .08

BUT scientists love the ‘literacy’ objective …

Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness

It is true that science literacy is

low, low, low

Also true that nobody knows

much about much

Knowledge has only small impact

on attitudes

Objective: Increase science literacy …

Knowledge has only limited impact

on attitudes

Also lots of ‘information provision’

experiments

SHARING knowledge will always be a central part of science communication

(But …)

If not just knowledge, what

else can we focus on?

A few thoughts about ethics

Objective: Build positive views about science/scientists

Those involved in science have

a generally positive image?

2013 Harris poll on views about professions

Those involved in science have

a generally positive image?

But there’s a catch …You’re seen

as competent but cold

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

Defendscience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame issue

Show values

Hear others

Show expert

Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

If warmth is so important, how can scientists be seen as more warm

Face-to-face

Direct w/policy-makers

Online

Mediated

Public Engagement = Positive Public Interaction

I have questions about the impact of these …

(Research in progress)

And these too…(Research in progress)

Funny and/or cathartic

Equal effective communication

And these too…(Research in progress)

If not just knowledge, what

else can we focus on?

Tversksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

Classic work on heuristics …

Tversksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

“Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it.”

Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)

Nisbet, Matthew C. 2010. "Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement." In Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, edited by L. A. Kahlor and P.

A. Stout, 40-67.

“Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it.”

This is really about _______________ and how ____________ is/are responsible for ____________. We therefore need to _____________.

This is really about Bill Gates copied Apple and how Microsoft is responsible for copyright infringement. We therefore need to sue.

Re. How should we think about the origins of the graphical user interface?

This is really about Apple and Microsoft both borrowed an idea from the public conversation (i.e., Xerox) and how no one is responsible for damages. We therefore need to do nothing, except compete.

Episodic vs. Thematic Framing

Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)

Backlash to “security” frame

Framing doesn’t always work as

planned …

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

Defendscience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame issue

Show values

Hear others

Show expert

Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Finally: What does it mean to know your “audience” (= “interlocutors”)?

What do they want to hear?What might they want to say?

What do they think/feel about you?How are they thinking about issues?

But don’t forget … What are YOU trying to achieve?

What is the ethical path to achieving it?

Logic model/Theories of change

We will you do:___________

It will lead to:___________

The impact will be:___________

What skills do we need: ___________________What resources do we need: _______________What’s the first step: ______________________How does this fit our needs: ________________How does this fit our values: _______________ How will you know if you succeed: __________

Final thoughts I …

There are no silver bullets

Not everyone is reachable It takes time

Final thoughts II …

It might be okay to have a friend

photograph your wedding … This material is based upon work supported by the National

Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

But sometimes help is … helpful.And there’s no

need to reinvent the wheel …

China 2016; Being strategic in science communication

Education