Science Communication: Training for the Future

authordefault
on

Yesterday I arrived in Las Vegas, Nevada, for another installment of an enterprise to which Iโ€™ve been increasingly devoted over the last year: Training scientists in communication, public engagement, and media outreach. Working with the National Science Foundation, but also sometimes on my own, Iโ€™ve now probably been involved in training over a thousand scientists in these, er,ย โ€œarts.โ€

In this, Iโ€™m just one part of a much broader communication and outreach wave that is sweeping the science world. This wave, in my view, has built up for two related reasons: 1) ongoing frustration in the research community over the failure to get its knowledge โ€œout thereโ€โ€”successfully disseminatedโ€”especially on controversial subjects like climate change and evolution; ย 2) the decline of science coverage itself in the traditional media, and the concomitant rise of the new media. This development is both exhilarating and ย also rather terrifying, because it increasingly places the scientist him- or herself in the position of serving as a direct-to-public communicator, rather than in the old role of communicating through an intermediary (theย journalist).

My co-authored 2009 book Unscientific America noted these trends and called for greater outreach effortsโ€”and now, Iโ€™m also heavily involved in trying to realize the vision. As a result, I think itโ€™s worth laying out some conclusions Iโ€™ve drawn so far from the โ€œsci commโ€ training enterprise, as well as to describe what appear to be the next steps. (This is also something Iโ€™m going to be talking about more at two conferences coming up: The Soil Science Society of America annual meeting in San Antonio in October, and the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union this December in Sanย Francisco.)

To me, the key tension at the center of this exercise is between โ€œtheoryโ€ and โ€œpractice.โ€ And we have to ensure itโ€™s a productiveย one.

Any good science communication training event, or curriculum, will include elements of both theory and practice. But there is vastly more theory out there than you can usually cover, and any trainingโ€”especially if your time is limited to a few days, as ours areโ€“must largely focus on theย practical.

And yet we can never forget that theory must inform practiceโ€”indeed, theory could potentially significantly reviseย practice.

The central question thus becomes: As modules across the country and world develop to spread knowledge about the practice of science communication, at what point do we need to build in an entire โ€œLevel 102โ€ that does a better job handling the theory? And indeed, while the โ€œpracticeโ€ is generally more stable, the theory itself is always growing and changing. Thatโ€™s because scientific knowledge itself is increasingly rapidly about what we might call the psychological dynamics behind science communicationโ€“to the point where some researchers are proposing a โ€œscience of science communicationโ€ that is definitely not a part of our currentย trainings.

How do we take this into account? Thatโ€™s the question I want to address, but first, letโ€™s say more about what these two elements, practice and theory,ย comprise.

The Practice. This is what, at least with NSF,ย we spend most of our time on. It ranges from what I call โ€œjargon-bustingโ€โ€”teaching scientists not to use words that only they understandโ€”to emphasizing the core need to design a message in a strategic way, rather than a haphazard one, and how to do that. It also comprises the โ€œrules of engagementโ€ for interacting with those old media journalists still trolling around, and the โ€œrules of creationโ€ as scientists venture into direct communication with the public, often using new media: How not to induce โ€œdeath by PowerPointโ€ in the audience, how to make a video, how to create a blog and Tweet, and soย on.

Some of these elements of โ€œpracticeโ€ are unlikely to be changed by anything that happens in the realm of โ€œtheory.โ€ For instance, I canโ€™t see any possible world in which psychology is going to teach us that using jargon is actually a good way for scientists to reach non-scientists. Nor can I see any world in which having a disciplined message is not going to be better than an unorganized dataย dump.

Theory. The โ€œtheoryโ€ of science communication encompasses a variety of different elements, and is interdisciplinary in nature. It includes โ€œmodelsโ€ to describe the scientist-media-public interaction: What are the channels of communication, how is the message encoded, transmitted, decoded, and so on. It involves normative debates about what the goal of communicating science to the public actually is. It involves analyses of science communication effortsโ€”what โ€œframesโ€ are used, and how do they influence media coverage and publicย opinion?

But I think that even in the realm of theory, this is rather standard stuff, and doesnโ€™t much get at the really deep developments that areย coming.

This sort of dawned on me last week, when I came across a paper in Climatic Change purporting to demonstrate, using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, that scientists have different personalities than members of the general public, and that this deep seated difference impairs communication. It has also been dawning on me as I survey all the growing research on motivated reasoningโ€”how subconscious emotional impulses and moral values drive our interpretations of technical information, particularly in contested areas, and how opening people up to new knowledge often has far less to do with delivering the facts than getting their defenses down, through practices like, say, self-affirmation.

This is a young and burgeoning field, but already it is clear that psychology and cognitive neuroscience are going to tell us much more than we currently know about which types of messages actually reach people, which types of people actually make good messengers (to what types of people), and so on. Frankly, I see us heading into a world in which we will develop a โ€œscienceโ€ that is capable of explaining, at the level of the brain, why certain narratives or โ€œframesโ€ provoke emotional responses in audiences that not only engender ย more openness to information, but also motivate people to take actions. Weโ€™re talking about the โ€œYes, We Canโ€ model of scienceย communication.

Integration. Some aspects of the โ€œstandard stuffโ€ about science communication theoryโ€”and a few morsels of the less standard stuffโ€”get into current science communication trainings. For instance: I now realize that when I do mock interviews with scientists in which I play Stephen Colbert, or when Alan Alda does improv comedy trainings for scientists, weโ€™re essentially playing a game that turns on emotion and personality. Weโ€™re tossing Myers-Briggs โ€œthinkersโ€ into the deep water of โ€œfeelingโ€ and showing that there is a different and more engaging form of communication than the wonk-technical. (I say this even though I have caveats about the Myers-Briggs approach and the research in this area. But I am nevertheless pretty certain that we are going to find broad personality differences between the average scientist and the average member of the generalย public.)

So far, though, the more cutting edge theory is not influencingโ€”that muchโ€”the science communication practice. At least not that I can see. We need to take that much farther. There ought to be a Science Communication 102 level curriculum to complement the practical, training-oriented approaches. I know some universities are moving in this directionโ€”that shouldย continue.

Ultimately, what does a โ€œscience of science communicationโ€ look like? Maybe, something likeย this.

Picture a targeted audience, whose broad values are known, being reached by a scientist-communicator who begins with an emotional appeal that resonates with those core values. The scientist-communicator makes sure that the audience feelsโ€”not thinks, but feelsโ€”agreement, affirmation, and shared ground with the speaker before delivering any information, especially controversial information. Then the presenter goes on to embed scientific information in a narrative that follows a dramatic structure and leads to an emotionally satisfying resolution. The audience then โ€œrespondsโ€โ€”heart and head, except of course, all of this is actually in the headโ€“and the connection isย perfect.

Some of the best science communicators already do precisely this, by instinct. But in the future, science itself will be able to tell us who they are, and why what theyโ€™re doing actuallyย succeeds.

And ultimately, weโ€™re going to have to teach science communicationย accordingly.

Related Posts

on

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.
Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.
on

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.