Twenty Years of Evolving Models of Science Communication

@MCNisbet

Matthew C. NisbetAssociate ProfessorSchool of CommunicationAmerican University Washington D.C.

The Sharing Science Conference

University of British Columbia 03.29.14

The Popularization and Dissemination Model

@MCNisbet

Engages a core audience of science

enthusiasts who can comment, share, and

repurpose.

Can reach through incidental exposure non-

attentive, broader publics.

Can shape the decisions and thinking of

policymakers, journalists and funders.

For scientists, can build personal

brand, increase citation impact, influence

scientific peers, and develop skills and

experience.

Popularization & The Cycle of Hype

@MCNisbet

Emphasis by funding agencies on broader

impacts puts pressure on scientists and

institutions to “oversell” their findings.

Media coverage emphasizes near term societal

benefits and market development with less

emphasis on uncertainty and possible risks.

Hype risks credibility and trust in science and

may undermine ability to do basic research.

Increasingly defines science and higher

education in terms of economic development and

job growth.

More Scientific Knowledge = More Disagreement?

@MCNisbetNisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (2014). Understanding Public Opinion in Debates Over Biomedical Research: Looking Beyond

Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88473.

More Carl Sagans?

Social Identity and Communication Behavior

@MCNisbet

More Carl Sagans?

Social Identity and Communication

@MCNisbetNisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (in press). Experts in an Age of Polarization: Evaluating Scientists’ Engagement with

Politics and Civic Life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

The Strategic Communication Model

Messaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders

@MCNisbet

Strategic Communication Campaigns:

Frictions and Trade-Offs

@MCNisbet

Raises questions about conflict of interest and

manipulation.

Difficulty coordinating message strategy across

groups and organizations.

Often serves to increase polarization and divisions.

Increased targeting = increased echo chambers.

Does strategic communication lead to effective

policy?

Under what conditions does broader public matter

to policymaking?

Defines public as spectators, consumers or voters

but not as active participants in decisions.

Public Engagement and Dialogue Model:

Deliberative Forums, Public Meetings, Digital News Forums

@MCNisbet

Seeks to “democratize” the governance of science and technology.

Can enhance civic capacity of regions, creating opportunities to debate and collaborate.

Can increase participant trust and knowledge, soften group differences and polarization.

Informs policy options, adapts knowledge to localized contexts or specialized cases.

Questions regarding representativeness and reach, giving visibility to minority views, or criticized as just another “public relations” strategy.

Worldwide Views on Biodiversity

@MCNisbet

Stakeholder Driven Science and Lay Expertise Model

@MCNisbet

Research that effectively addresses the needs of society requires “co-production” with public.

Emphasis on research that is useable, problem solving and socially acceptable; aligning research efforts with national, state or local needs.

Promotes enhanced trust, appreciation and support for research institution among public, stakeholders and policymakers.

Can be time consuming, resource intensive, “messy,” does not fit easily with traditional collaboration, publication and credit model.

www.ClimateShiftProject.org/NASInterface

@MCNisbet