Next week, I will be teaming up with Chris Mooney at Cal Tech for an evening lecture followed by a day long science communication seminar for the university's graduate students and post-docs. Details are below along with the suggested reading list.
Speaking Science Boot Camp
Matthew C. Nisbet & Chris Mooney
Over the past several years, the seemingly never-ending controversies over evolution, embryonic stem cell research, global climate change, and many other topics have led to a troubling revelation. Scientific knowledge, alone, does not always suffice when it comes to winning political arguments, changing government policies, or influencing public opinion. Put simply, many journalists, policymakers, and citizens consume and act on scientific information in a vastly different way than do the scientists who generate it. As a result, scientists and their organizations repeatedly face difficult challenges in explaining their knowledge to diverse groups of citizens.
As issues at the intersection of science and politics gain more and more attention, something beyond just scientific data--beyond "getting the facts out there"--will be necessary to break through to the public. But what are the new directions? It's time to question some central assumptions and focus on fresh ideas.
A conversation about new directions in science communication.
In this joint presentation, journalist Chris Mooney and communication professor Matthew Nisbet explain how scientists and their allies can "reframe" old debates in new ways, remaining true to the science but taking advantage of a fragmented media environment to connect with a broader American public.
This two-part event features a public lecture on Monday evening, followed by a more detailed, hands-on workshop on Tuesday.
Monday's lecture will serve as an introduction to interactions between science, the media, and the public. Growing out of the evening lecture -- but providing much more in-depth content -- the full-day workshop will provide a hands-on media primer, focusing on two critical issues: 1) how audiences find, understand, and use scientific information; 2) the knowledge and tools that scientists need to deal with the press. In other words, when journalists call you'll know what to do and what to say (and what not to say, too)."
SCIENCE, MEDIA, & THE PUBLIC
History, Concepts, and Principles
Burns, T.W. O'Connor, D.J., Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (2), 183-202.
National Science Board (2008). Chapter 7: Public Attitudes and Understanding. National Science Indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
Kitzinger, J. (2006). The role of media in public engagement. In S. Miller (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. UK: Wellcome Trust.
Yankelovich D. (2003, summer). Winning greater influence for science. Issues in Science and Technology.
Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2007, October). The future of public engagement. The Scientist.
CBC Radio (2008). Interview with Brian Wynne. How to Think about Science series. *[Audio Podcast]*
Recent Controversies and Case Studies
Moser, S. & Dilling, L (2004). Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment 46 (10): 32-46.
Nisbet, M.C. (2008). Moving beyond Gore's message: A look back and ahead at climate change communications. Skeptical Inquirer Online.
Labov, J. and Pope, B.K. (2008). Understanding our audiences: The design and evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(1): 20-24.
Nisbet, M.C. (in press). Expelled? Conflict and consensus in communicating about evolution. Kean Review. [Set the PDF to 100%]
Friedman, S.M.; Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology: risks and the media. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 24, (4), 5 - 11. (Log in via library gateway.)
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (12), 732 - 734. [Log in via library gateway.]
Editorial (2008). A little knowledge. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, (12). [Log in via library gateway.]
*Recommended additional reading:
Logan, R. (2001). Science mass communication: A conceptual history. Science Communication, 23, (2), 135-163.
Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23 (2), 164-193.
Bauer, M., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, (1) 79-95 .
House of Lords. 2000. Science and Society. London: UK House of Lords. See also government response.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at a cross-roads. Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 115-120.
Einsiedel, E. and Eastlick, D.L. (2001). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication 21 (4):323-343.
MEDIA STRATEGY AND RELATIONS
Willems, J. 2003. Bringing down the barriers - public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature 422, 470.
Russell, C. (2006). Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting
on Science and Public Policy. Working Paper, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University.
Mooney, C. & Nisbet, M.C. (2005, Sept./Oct.). When coverage of evolution shifts to the political and opinion pages, the scientific context falls away, unraveling Darwin. Columbia Journalism Review, 31-39.
Revkin, A. (2007). Climate Change as News: Challenges in Communicating Environmental Science. In J.C. DiMento & P.M. Doughman (Eds.), Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 139-160..
Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. (2006). The next big storm? Skeptical Inquirer Online.
* Recommended additional reading.
Hayes, R. & Grossman, D. (2006). A Scientist's guide to talking with the media. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Metcalfe Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting (2007). Workshop Reports: Science Communications and the News Media.
I'm a scientist-turned-journalist who has given several talks on this subject to other scientists, and really appreciate hearing that you're doing much of the same. I think the framing perspective is very useful to scientists, who are used to simply presenting facts and letting their audience make sense of it. That is not how PR or the media works. If you let your audience frame the issue for you, you've lost much of the power of your message.
Because some of my background is in radio, I've found it very useful to play some audio clips of scientists talking about their work on the radio. That lets the scientists I'm talking to hear their compatriots talking in their own words . This is particularly effective in showing how powerful metaphor and story can be when trying to communicate to someone who knows nothing about your work. I try to play clips about, say, biology, to physicists, so they're put in the role of the novice.
I'm also curious what you or anyone else thought of the "Scientists Guide to Talking to the Media" book, listed above, from Union of Concerned Scientists.
Crossposted on http://sciencegeekgirl.wordpress.com/