strategic science communication (short version): delivered in stellenbosch sept. 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Thinking about objectives and goals for science communicationJohn C. Besley, Ph.D. (@johnbesley)Ellis N. Brandt ChairCollege of Communication Arts and Sciences
My current research objectives1. Explicate engagement as a strategic act that
involves purposeful choice of long-term goals and intermediate objectives.
2. Better understand why communicators adopt or reject a strategic approach (as a means of improving training).
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 2006Our own AAAS data (2013, n = 388)
• 75% had engaged face-to-face• 49% had engaged online• 45% had interacted with the media• 30% had “other”-wise engaged
*All work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
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 happens if you get really good at communicating the wrong stuff?
I don’t mean bad content…
What does it mean to be an “effective” communicator?
In strategic communication: Effective = Achieving Your Goals
What do you want to ULTIMATELY achieve through public engagement?
How many of you thought about:• 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:• 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: 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 limited impact
on attitudes
Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
messaging goal average (r = .54)
describing … in ways that make them relevant
framing research … {to} resonate …
trust goals average (r = .54)
demonstrating … openness & transparency
hearing what others think …
getting people excited about science
knowledge goals average (r = .41)
ensuring that scientists … are part of …
ensuring that people are informed …
defensive goals average (r = .63)
defending science …
correcting scientific misinformation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.96
5.34
4.59
5
5.22
4.76
5.59
5.88
5.72
6.04
5.96
5.79
6.14
“How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
BUT scientists love the ‘literacy’
objective …
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?
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
2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
messaging goal average (r = .54)
describing … in ways that make them relevant
framing research … {to} resonate …
trust goals average (r = .54)
demonstrating … openness & transparency
hearing what others think …
getting people excited about science
knowledge goals average (r = .41)
ensuring that scientists … are part of …
ensuring that people are informed …
defensive goals average (r = .63)
defending science …
correcting scientific misinformation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.96
5.34
4.59
5
5.22
4.76
5.59
5.88
5.72
6.04
5.96
5.79
6.14
Strategic objectives
“How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
If warmth is so important, how can scientists be seen as more warm/respectful?
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?
“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.
Backlash to “security” frame
Framing doesn’t always work as
planned …
2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
messaging goal average (r = .54)
describing … in ways that make them relevant
framing research … {to} resonate …
trust goals average (r = .54)
demonstrating … openness & transparency
hearing what others think …
getting people excited about science
knowledge goals average (r = .41)
ensuring that scientists … are part of …
ensuring that people are informed …
defensive goals average (r = .63)
defending science …
correcting scientific misinformation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.96
5.34
4.59
5
5.22
4.76
5.59
5.88
5.72
6.04
5.96
5.79
6.14
Strategic objectives
“How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
When do scientists pursue objectives?• When they think they’ll have effect.• When they think they have the
skill to achieve the effect.
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?
Exercise ... 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 …
But sometimes help is … helpful.
And there’s no need to reinvent
the wheel …