Framing Science
nisbetmc | November 20, 2007
At the Columbia Journalism Review, managing editor Brent Cunningham argues for a new journalistic beat that covers the obscuring uses of language and messaging in politics. The essay is part of a special issue devoted to "Orwell in '08."
The benefits of a "rhetoric and framing" beat would be obvious and sorely needed, as he asks:
What if on 9/11 our major media outlets had employed reporters whose sole job it was to cover the rhetoric of politics--to parse the language of our elected leaders, challenge it, and explain the thinking behind it, the potential power it can have to legitimize…
nisbetmc | November 17, 2007
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the central role of framing in communication and it's a major reason that Tyson is perhaps the most effective science popularizer of his generation. In a fascinating interview on this week's Point of Inquiry, here's how Tyson describes his philosophy and approach to reaching non-traditional audiences via the media (at about 11:40 minutes into the interview):
GROTHE Do you think that mass media, going that route, do you think it undercuts your science education agenda because you have to speak in sound bites, you have to reduce it down to the simplest terms…
nisbetmc | November 10, 2007
The studios of Point of Inquiry
For those in the DC area, Wednesday evening I will be speaking at the one year anniversary of the Center for Inquiry's Public Policy office [Details Below]. Also making remarks will be DJ Grothe, host of the popular Point of Inquiry podcast series. Recently celebrating its 100th episode, POI has hosted many notable discussions of issues related to science, religion, and public engagement. At Framing Science I have spotlighted several of these guests' remarks including those of Paul Kurtz, Carol Tavris, and Phil Kitcher.
First Anniversary Party!
Wednesday,…
nisbetmc | November 7, 2007
"Sandwalk" blogger Larry Moran
If the blog debate that ensued after publication of our article at Science showed anything, it was just how widely misunderstood the concept of framing might be. Not surprisingly, many bloggers offer strong opinions about framing and its relationship to science communication but have very little actual knowledge or expertise in the area. In particular, many bloggers continue to connect framing to debates over atheism and religion, which is an unfortunate distraction. Another distortion is the assumption that anyone can just go out and "start framing," when…
nisbetmc | November 3, 2007
[Image from Salon.com feature on panelist Barbara J. King]
Full details are now available for the previously announced panel on Communicating Science in a Religious America at February's AAAS meetings in Boston.
180-Minute Symposium
Communicating Science in a Religious America
Sunday, Feb 17, 2008, 1:45 PM - 4:45 PM
Synopsis:
Over the coming decades, as society faces major collective choices on issues such as climate change, biomedical research, and nanotechnology, scientists and their organizations will need to work together with religious communities to formulate effective policies and to…
nisbetmc | October 23, 2007It's going to be a busy 24 hours.
On Wednesday evening I will be at the Center for Inquiry-NYC for the latest in our Speaking Science 2.0 tour. Then I will head back to DC for a Thursday morning press conference where I will be talking about a report that argues for new directions in communicating about poverty and low wage work. Sponsored by Inclusion and the Joyce Foundation, details are posted below. I will have much more to say about the report later this week.
Directly after the press conference, I drive to Bucknell University where I will meet back up with Chris Mooney for a Thursday…
nisbetmc | October 23, 2007The latest issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (sub, text below) runs an "at a glance" spotlight on our cover article at The Scientist.
A Glance at the October Issue of The Scientist: The Framing of Science
By JASON M. BRESLOW
The way most experts see it, "ignorance is at the root of conflict over science," write two communication scholars, but many "ignore the possibility that their communication efforts might be part of the problem."
The authors--Matthew C. Nisbet, an assistant professor of communication at American University, and Dietram A. Scheufele, a professor of journalism…
cmooney | October 23, 2007Along with Nisbet, I continue to give various versions of the Speaking Science 2.0 talk frequently--even though we are not always so good about updating the Speaking Science 2.0 webpage. Um, intern, anybody? Oh wait, that was my little sister, and now she's back at college...
...anyways, we're doing two more presentations together this week. The first will be in New York, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry--that's Wednesday night. Details here. If you missed us at the New York Academy of Sciences in June, this is the next Big Apple trip.
The next talk, Thursday, will be at Bucknell…
nisbetmc | October 22, 2007David Goldston and I had a great discussion at WAMU-NPR's Kojo Namdi Show today. We were also joined later in the program by Francesca Grifo, Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. You can listen to the archived audio here.
nisbetmc | October 21, 2007Tomorrow (Monday) at 1pm EST I will be joined by Nature columnist and former House Science committee Chief of Staff David Goldston as a guest on WAMU's Kojo Nmandi Show. The program will focus on the connections between science policy, scientists, and the public. At WAMU's Web site, you can listen to the program live or later via the audio archive.
Scientists vs. Politicians in Public Policy
What happens when cutting-edge science gets caught in the middle of political and ethical debates? Today, many decisions about issues like global warming and stem-cell research are influenced by people…
sheril | October 19, 2007Well, you might have noticed I tend to keep things light on Fridays and this one's no exception. I won't be posting again today because I'm holding a roundtable on (you guessed it) Science Communication. I'm in good company with Dietram, Matt, Abel, and a few other leading experts on how messages resonate with the public and policymakers. So I'll be tied up all day, wishing Chris were able to be here with all of us too. For really, what is 'Framing Science' without my favorite SciBling and coblogger?
And now without further ado, (with special thanks to Kraig for allowing us to post this…
nisbetmc | October 17, 2007
It's another busy week on the road giving presentations, trading ideas, and meeting a lot of really smart and dedicated people. Yesterday, via video conference, I spoke as part of a panel at a National Academies' meeting on science and technology advice in state policy decisions. Joining me on the panel for a very interesting discussion about science communication were Marla Cone of the Los Angeles Times, William Harrack, Professor of Engineering at the University of Illinois, and John McDonald, President of Stone's Throw Strategic Communications.
Tomorrow I will be at NSF headquarters to…
clock | October 11, 2007The other day, Kate organized a talk by Sheila Jasanoff about science communication and subsequently summarized the talk on her blog. You need to read the whole thing, but the main point is that there is a difference between a one-to-many communication of usual science communication (the 'public service model'), including science education, policy speaches, etc., more often than not presented by non-scientists, e.g., journalists, politicians, etc. and the many-to-many interactive engaging of scientists with the public in a two-way communication (the 'public sphere model'):
Thus, perhaps the…
cmooney | October 8, 2007Without necessarily intending to, in her speech last week Hillary Clinton demonstrated just how irrelevant some criticisms of the "framing science" thesis have been.
Consider: Hillary is a politician, and she wants to deliver a message about science--a vastly complex subject with many diverse aspects. So what does she do? Well, duh, she frames. She pares down complexity, and emphasizes only those aspects of science that are tailored to resonate with her core audience. For a politician speaking about science, it could scarcely be otherwise.
Not only is there nothing wrong with Hillary's use…
nisbetmc | October 8, 2007
On Friday, I was in Seattle for our latest stop in the Speaking Science 2.0 tour. We were hosted by the University of Washington's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy (FOSEP), the Dept. of Communication, the Pacific Science Center, and Town Hall Seattle. (I will have a post up later about how FOSEP serves as an innovative model for regional collaborations around science communication.)
The day started at 11am with a presentation I gave to about 60 faculty and graduate students on the communication dynamics of the stem cell debate. While I was wrapping up the presentation at the Student Union…
nisbetmc | October 4, 2007
Tomorrow at the University of Washington I will be speaking to the Department of Communication in the morning and then joined in the evening by Chris Mooney to deliver our Speaking Science 2.0 lecture. In the afternoon, we will also be hosting a discussion with graduate students on the topic of "When Science Turns Political..."
The events are sponsored by the Forum on Science, Ethics, and Policy (FOSEP) and the Pacific Institute. The evening talk at the Pacific Science Center, free and open to the public, starts at 7pm (details on the full day's events).
Using the anniversary of Sputnik as…
cmooney | October 3, 2007Listen up, y'all: Nisbet has just teamed up with Dietram Scheufele, a colleague from UW-Madison, to pen a lengthy cover story for The Scientist that fleshes out the now uncontroversial framing science argument. Furthermore, Scientist editor Richard Gallagher strongly endorses the argument in his accompanying editorial:
Those opposed to framing, in addition to a wistful longing to have science truly understood, also hold a sincere concern. They fear that framing taints science, that it is spin, rhetoric, or propaganda, and that the discussion of science has to stand above such base activity.…
sheril | October 2, 2007[DISCLAIMER: I expect Chris may not like what I'm about to compose because we both generally support the Center for American Progress. Still, you bet I'll speak up when they publish something downright irresponsible - even with the best intentions. That said, readers: What follows in no way reflects the opinions of Chris Mooney. And to my favorite co-blogger: Although I expect you're going feel I'm too hard on CAP, we both know you didn't bring me on board to agree on everything.] So here goes...
As stated above, until last week I thought the Center for American Progress was alright. I…
nisbetmc | October 1, 2007Back in the spring, the Nisbet/Mooney tour visited the New York Academy of Sciences (Audio and Slides). In terms of turn out and post-discussion, it was one of the best events we have done. Now it appears that our ideas have inspired a new outreach effort coordinated by NYAS and area graduate students. From the NYAS Web site:
Early Career Investigators Create Science Communication Series
Science Alliance Program Director Lori Conlan called it "the proudest moment" in her tenure with the Academy's professional development program for young scientists when a trio of members presented her with…
nisbetmc | September 29, 2007
I'm back in DC after an all too short trip to Minneapolis. Chris Mooney and I flew in to speak at the annual meetings of the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals. Among the gathered physicians, nurses, and health advocates, there was definitely a lot of buzz about the potential to apply research on framing to issues ranging from contraception to abortion rights. As advisers to ARHP, Chris and I look forward to more collaboration over the next year.
Last night, we also spoke at the University of Minnesota's Bell Museum of Natural History, appearing on a panel with the bloggers PZ…