There's not a one size fits all approach to getting a message across that resonates with the public and policymakers. The idea is to 'Frame Science' in a language that turns people on with the goal of engaging a targeted audience to think and care about a critical issue. The magic recipe is in finding the right "Frame" that fits.
As scientists, our first step is choosing content carefully and presenting it from a united academic stance. Too often we are at odds over the nuances of one concept. We have been trained to be critical, seeking the holes in others' research by pointing out unanswered questions. I continue to believe this is extremely important in science. However, it becomes counterproductive toward implementing legislation based on the best science available because we undermine our efforts with mixed messages. In the policy realm, academic disparity emphasizes uncertainty. It's a wholly different culture so different rules apply. Scientists must adapt and evolve to the political environment [paging Randy Olson!] to have the impact we aspire to achieve.
Science - and the vehicle used to to translate our messages - must be framed strategically. On that note, communication is in itself an art form generally not required in the pursuit of a PhD. (Perhaps it ought to be?) Words and approach should be chosen with care and consistancy. After all, this "Frame" has relevance in your home - our world.
That said, stay tuned.. As promised, cuddly marine mammals are next.
posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
- Log in to post comments
Admittedly, I haven't given the framing science debate the thought it deserves, which probably reflects the state of affairs among most scientists just trying to get published, get grants, and maybe even get some exercise. But I have two thoughts that come to mind after reading the post on strategery (The Saturday Night Live word to sum up the 2004 Bush election campaign).
Does the truth need to strategize? Nike, Brad Pitt, and Starbucks have to strategize. They have to market themselves (and indeed have invested infinitely more in marketing than product development) and figure out how to become not only a brand but a lifestyle. Does science? And if it does, will this not inherently strip science of some of its integrity? Is society so shallow that the truth no longer matters unless its well packaged?
It's unfortunate (but obvious) that lawyerly types and PR flacks operate in a very different world than scientists. Since scientists operate in a certain tradition, they tend to rely on just laying out the facts, assuming that others are operating from the same basic premises and arguing in good faith. The people advocating framing are saying that this leaves you vulnerable:
Of course, there are bad ways to frame, and quite possibly there are some flakes out there shooting themselves in the foot by doing it wrong. But the basic idea that you look at public statements you make in a certain forum from a variety of different angles--perhaps some not traditionally considered by scientists--seems like a good one to me. "Teachable moments," the opportunity to say something effective, are easy to blow, and tend not to come around very often...
When constructing a frame for a discussion, it is definitely necessary to strategize. A strategy in argumentation is an attempt to define certain premises as accepted, and to align the argument so that it supports a particular goal.
For example, suppose we take as a premise that resource exhaustion can cause the collapse of a civilization. This provides a means for unifying a discussion of many other threats. Rather than viewing threats such as deforestation or lack of clean water as isolated phenomena, we can see their significance better when we understand them as examples of resource exhaustion.
This connects information produced by science with a social implication. We can draw conclusions as a society by asking a single question: "What can we do to avoid a resource exhaustion that is sufficiently comprehensive to threaten our survival?"
Marketing of that message takes us beyond the truth and into the realms of metaphor and persuasion. Persuasion is required to get certain essential premises accepted, and to agree upon the value of achieving certain goals.
In itself, however, the framed version of the analysis is still sound science. The place where we get suspicious is when the argument and its conclusions are well-aligned with a particular goal, such as preventing trouble for human populations in the near and medium-term future. That alignment indicates that the argument is well-crafted. Yet if the premises and goal are well-chosen, the conclusions may be both logically sound and valid in practice.
"On that note, communication is in itself an art form generally not required in the pursuit of a PhD. (Perhaps it ought to be?)"
I would disagree...at least from my experience, the whole process of writing papers, giving talks, and presenting posters is all about communication. The whole point of a defense is to communicate what you've done, how it contributed, its implications, etc. Commonly, this is a 1-hour distillation of many years of research. To do that successfully requires knowing how to communicate.
Of course, what you are getting at is that communicating it to the public at large is not required to get a PhD...I understand that point. But your overarching statement that learning how to communicate is absent from the getting-the-PhD-process is misguided and oversimplified.
It's hard to imagine a "requirement" in this regard...would it be a required class? Perhaps a short synopsis of what your research means written for the general public as a required "chapter" in the disseration? That could be an interesting idea...hmmm
Q : Is society so shallow that the truth no longer matters unless its well packaged?
A : No. It is far shallower. For a whole lot of people the package is the only thing that matters, or worse, the only thing they are capable to respond to
Framing matters because values trump facts.
That's a provocative frame for an idea that would probably be accepted by most scientists. And because it's a provocative frame, I expect that it irritated most scientific readers.
Here's a general example of the idea. If a person finds their worldview challenged by an isolated event, then the event is typically discounted or neglected to preserve the worldview. Only if contradictory events reach beyond a high threshold does a person begin to question their worldview.
How does this operate in the practice of science? Anomalies in research are usually noted but typically they don't undermine the larger theory or body of knowledge that underlies the work. However, if anomalies begin to accumulate, then the larger body of knowledge is called into question and examined.
What's the idea here? Bigger Truths such as a person's worldview outrank smaller truths such as an isolated event. In scientific terms, a well-established body of knowledge outranks a contradictory isolated observation.
Is any of this a problem? No. But it does say some important things about framing science.
Framing science is nothing more than choosing the context for a scientific presentation. The goals of the presentation should help determine the context. Do you want to present an idea in a way that provokes and stimulates? Then present the idea as in conflict with an established worldview and have some fun with the fireworks. Do you want to persuade people to accept an idea? Then show how the idea enhances and extends an established worldview. But whatever you do, do it consciously and by design, and you've effectively framed your science