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
5
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%
Biochemistry (TBD)
Social Science (TBD)
Sci. Comm. Experts (TBD)* 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.
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
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?
(Write it down)
How many of you wrote:• 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.
How many of you wrote:• 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)
17
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
18
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face 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
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
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the ‘literacy’ 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: Increase science literacy/awareness
It is true that science literacy is
low, low, low
Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Also true that nobody knows
much about much
Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Knowledge has only small impact
on attitudes
Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Objective: Increase science literacy …
Knowledge has only limited impact
on attitudes
Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Also lots of ‘information provision’
experiments
SHARING knowledge will always be a central part of science communication
(But …)
Tactics, objectives, and goals
*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
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
Objective: Build positive views about science/scientists
Those involved in science have
a generally positive image?
Objective: Build positive views about science/scientists
Those involved in science have
a generally positive image?
Objective: Build positive views about science/scientists
But there’s a catch …You’re seen
as competent but cold
33
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face 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
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
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the ‘literacy’ objective …
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)
Tactics, objectives, and goals
*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
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.
http://sfa.frameworksinstitute.org/
Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)
“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.
(U.S.-centric) Framing quiz …
Is it an estate tax or a _______________
Is it oil drilling or ___________________
Is it eavesdropping or _______________
Is it a used car or a __________________
Is it a secretary or a __________________
Is it anti-abortion or __________________
Is it pro-abortion or __________________
If you’re against a union or for ______________
It’s not single-payer medicine it’s ___________
You’re not an environmentalist you’re a ______
I’m not a liberal I’m a _____________________
It’s not (just) a regulation it’s a _____________
Others???
Episodic vs. Thematic Framing
Episodic vs. Thematic Framing
Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)
Backlash to “security” frame
Framing doesn’t always work as
planned …
50
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face 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
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
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the ‘literacy’ objective …
Finally: What does it mean to know your “audience” (= “interlocutors”)?
Tactics, objectives, and goals
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:___________
It will lead to:___________
It will lead to:___________
The impact will be:___________
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 …