I enjoy receiving email and appreciate all of the feedback, links, and comments that have hit my inbox since Saturday's panel with Jennifer and Chris on Framing Science. While the focus of my portion highlighted ScienceDebate2008, several readers have written with specific questions on Framing itself--and you bet I have some strong opinions!
So it's a good time to round up some of ye ol' posts from my first week at The Intersection and revisit these ideas eight months later. I'm interested to hear how readers feel about the way we convey science to those residing both in and outside of the ivory towers. Are we evolving in our approach to communication? Has Framing, in fact, had any impact beyond the discourse?
Re-Framing While Chris Mooney's Away
Framing Science is neither solely about the Frame nor the Science. Discuss. Post a comment, we'll talk, no big whoop.'
Framing II: Weapons in the Form of Words
'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.
Charismatic megafauna mostly appeal to those already convinced, but when human interests are part of the big picture, new possibilities abound. For action, as scientists we must present our message and rationale in a way that makes it personally relevant to everyone. Frame it right!
Framing IV: The Lorax Phenomenon
We need to repackage our delivery to the people who have greatest influence in policy. Scientists must work with folks in the marketing and business sectors to collaboratively understand the best means to convey our messages.
Framing is a concept, not dogma. We debate it's relevance mainly because as scientists we're accustomed to dissecting ideas. Viva la discourse!
The question I pose to readers is, are we making progress in the ways we think about, write, and explore our ideas? Are scientists and journalists improving our effectiveness at engaging broader audiences?
Surely, we're not there yet, so let's take the pulse of Framing Science in 2008 and consider whether we're moving forward and where to go from here...
- Log in to post comments
Sheril,
I was not reading The Intersection when you posted this series so had not come across your framing in this much detail until now. Frankly, I'm impressed. You provide a realistic and informed view over pie in the sky ideas. While in many ways I continue to feel much of this subject is stating the obvious, you have done so in a more articulate way than I could. You wade comfortably into a complex and often argumentative topic and this is much stronger than what I have read from Dr. Nisbet. His articles frustrate me and instead you are clearly speaking from a different perspective. I do not deny Matt's contribution is important in the dialog, but your perspective is very needed.
I would like to see more from you and Chris on this topic together. Thank you.
Professor MP
mike-
dont let sheryl's creative writing fool you. she's a good linguist, funny, and all, but framing is just as stupid a concept in 2008 as it was last year no matter how you frame it
If we do not "frame" the questions of science, especially those that enter the realm of politics, the Sen. Inhofe, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Grover Norquist will do it for you.
The very fact that so few questions regarding climate change have entered the presidential debates indicates that that we are not making the progress that we should.
Sheril's a great writer but I dont recall she ever claimed to be a linguist Cliff. Two very different things.
http://www.answers.com/topic/linguistics?cat=technology
I'm not a scientist, but I spent a few years doing media & communications work at a science-oriented environmental nonprofit in DC. So that's informed my thoughts somewhat.
When you've spent your career thinking empirically, it's not easy to turn around and communicate with a general audience whose tastes and views are not driven by facts but by emotions and values. That's the dilemma I saw constantly with our staff PhDs. They couldn't believe that people were more likely to reject facts that didn't jibe with their preconceived notions of how the world works.
I hate to sound utterly cynical (not to mention, over-generalizing), but the key thing to remember is that Joe Public is NOT going to be persuaded by facts in most cases. Each audience has its own way of seeing things, along with its own set of buttons that need pushing in particular ways, by particular people. And its often got nothing to do with education. That's a lesson I hope more members of the science community come to appreciate.