Framing Science
nisbetmc | September 7, 2008As I have written in various articles, when it comes to science debates, the public is far more likely to be miserly in reaching a judgment than fully informed. Most citizens are cognitive misers relying heavily on information short cuts and heuristics to make up their minds about a science controversy, often in the absence of knowledge.
As a result, in order to effectively engage the public, scientists and their organizations need to adapt their communication efforts to the realities of human nature and the media system. This means recasting, or "framing," their communication efforts in a…
nisbetmc | September 3, 2008George Lakoff weighs in with an assessment of what Sarah Palin can do for the McCain candidacy:
The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the…
nisbetmc | September 3, 2008
Psychology buffs are probably familiar with the Implicit Association Test. In laboratory experiments testing for racial prejudice, subjects are timed in their matching of positive and negative words with either white or black faces. In these tests, whites overwhelmingly react more positively to whites and more negatively towards blacks (take the test here).
The reason is that many whites lack personal "real world" experience with blacks and instead much of their perception of blacks is colored by unfair media portrayals (see this report I authored last year.) The torrent of media images of…
clock | August 29, 2008There was a fantastic example of an anti-vaccination caller on this show earlier today - Parents Protest Increase In Required Vaccinations. Please listen to the podcast, especially to the last caller. Prodded over and over again, she displayed more and more loony conspiracy theories and in the end flatly stated that no kind or amount of evidence would change her mind. Do you think she was handled well? What take-home message would an uninformed listener take from the exchange? Pro or con?
sheril | August 27, 2008originally published May 27, 2007 by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
Anticlimactic perhaps, but then you knew my last post on Framing wouldn't provide closure on the topic. Hubris would be an understatement if I claimed to have a panacea of answers. Instead, what follows are a few musings to wrap up ideas from Thursday based on my adventures across the science, policy, and pop culture worlds..
Framing's not a one-size-fits-all concept. Furthermore, not everything 'science' need necessarily be 'Framed' - it's entirely case specific. Big, immediate global concerns traversing disciplines and…
sheril | August 27, 2008originally published May 23, 2007 by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
Imagine you're a legislative staffer on Capitol Hill..
Short on time would be an understatement.
In comes Joe scientist carrying charts and referencing stats and p-values. 'Let's talk Global Warming!' Again?! He's the fourth PhD this afternoon. Kind of seems like old news. Today's topic is how Iran ignored the U.N. Security Council and your boss needs to make a statement on CNN's The Situation Room in 2 hours. Thanks for the information Joe, glad you stopped in.
Wait.. WHAT?!
Allow me to take this opportunity to discuss…
sheril | August 27, 2008originally published May 23, 2007 by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
Much emphasis in traditional conservation is paced on 'charismatic megafauna,' meaning the species that we all know and love. The heroes of the big screen. Save the Oceans for Flipper and Free Willy. Keep those penguins marching and the polar bears drinking Coca-Cola. Market the smiling dolphins, the majestic blue whales, and those adorable baby seals. 'Save the Sea Cucumber' just doesn't have the same clout. Package your landscape or region of choice under the umbrella of huggable marine mammal and everyone's on board to clean up…
sheril | August 27, 2008originally published May 23, 2007 by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
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…
sheril | August 27, 2008originally published May 23, 2007 by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
That's right, I said it.
Dare I broach the topic sans Chris? Is it fair to discuss Framing when he's not here at The Intersection to reply? I think YES. Just be aware everything that follows is 'according to Sheril' and none of this necessarily reflects the opinions of our two favorite Framers. That said, I'll forge on..
Unless you've fallen off the blogosphere since April, you're likely familiar with the concept of Framing Science which Mooney and Nisbet recently published an article about in the journal Science. My perspective…
cmooney | August 25, 2008Today I am down at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, speaking to a class taught by Jeremy Jackson, along with journalists Ken Weiss from the Los Angeles Times, Rex Dalton from Nature, and Mark Dowie from Mother Jones and many many other outlets.
We've all been addressing science communication in its various aspects, and there's certainly consensus among all four journalists on at least this much--science reporting faces some serious challenges today. I and others spoke about the increasing conglomeration of media, and how that leads to the cutback of substantive coverage in many areas…
nisbetmc | August 24, 2008
"New Evangelical" Joel Hunter (blue shirt) works with church members on a recycling campaign.
Evangelical leader Joel C. Hunter, a registered Republican, will give the closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, joining Al Gore and nominee Barack Obama on stage in front of 70,000 stadium goers.
Hunter opposes abortion and at one time had been chosen to lead the Christian Coalition. According to the Washington Post, for several years he has been at the forefront of a so-called "New Evangelical" movement dedicated to moving beyond the divisiveness of culture war issues.
"…
nisbetmc | August 22, 2008
Scientists are the most trusted spokespeople in America. Surveys show that they are the most admired profession and among institutions, only the military scores higher in terms of public confidence. Not only are scientists trusted authorities, the public strongly associates science with social progress and economic growth.
So when a company is struggling to tell its story and get its message across to the American public, it makes sense to turn to its scientists to deliver a message. It's basic branding. Just like companies pay millions to advertise and sponsor the Olympics, Exxon Mobil has…
nisbetmc | August 7, 2008This blog has a ton of readers from the Madison, Wisconsin area. It's not surprising given that the university town is a major international hub for interest in science communication and public affairs.
For Madison-area readers, tonight offers a great opportunity to discuss first hand many of the research principles and arguments that have been made here at Framing Science. My colleague Dietram Scheufele will be giving a presentation titled "Does Science Have a Marketing Problem? The Convergence of Science, Policy & Communication."
Scheufele is a professor of Life Sciences Communication…
clock | August 6, 2008Not on US television (Channel 4 in the UK only):
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
[Via]
clock | July 31, 2008Interesting idea:
"Save It" Global Warming message by 10 yr old from 1skycampaign on Vimeo.
[Via - read the post as well]
nisbetmc | July 24, 2008
As I like to say, when it comes to science debates, the public is far more likely to be miserly in reaching a judgment than fully informed. Most citizens are cognitive misers relying heavily on information short cuts and heuristics to make up their minds about a science controversy, often in the absence of knowledge. The fragmented nature of our modern media system magnifies the problem of a miserly public, introducing the "problem of choice." Absent a strong preference for the really good science coverage available, citizens can completely avoid such information, paying attention instead to…
nisbetmc | July 22, 2008
I recently submitted a final draft of a book chapter that reviews much of the research that has fueled the framing science debate. The chapter is set to appear in early 2008 in a volume titled New Agendas in Science Communication, published by Taylor & Francis and edited by JoAnn Kahlor and Patricia Stout at the University of Texas. You can read a PDF of the final draft here.
In the chapter, I synthesize the findings and conclusions from many previously published studies and articles. Detailing the specific cases of nuclear energy, evolution, and climate change, I demonstrate the…
clock | July 20, 2008Titles of blog posts have to be short, but I could expand it to something like this:
"Depending on the medium and the context, many scientists can be and often are excellent communicators"
That is what I understood to be the main take-home message of "Sizzle". If you check out all the other blog reviews, even those that are the harshest do not state the opposite, i.e., that the movie pushes the stereotype of scientists as dull, stuffy communicators. Though, some of the commenters on those blog posts - people who could not have seen the movie themselves yet - imply that this was the case.
So…
clock | July 18, 2008Scientific Collectivism 1: (Or How I Stopped Worrying and Loved Dissent):
I want to bring up a discussion about what I perceive is a dangerous trend in neuroscience (this may be applicable to other areas of science as well), and that is what I will term "scientific collectivism." I am going to split this into two separate posts because it is so long. This first post is the weaker arguments, and what I see are the less interesting aspects of scientific collectivism-however, they deserve a discussion.
What will you be? and the related Friday Poll: Tinker, Tailor, Biologist, Researcher. So, how…
clock | July 16, 2008Olivia Judson is absolutely right - let's get rid of the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism". She writes, among else:
I'd like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually…